i-.«fe£ 


CO 
00 

r- 
r- 
co 

03 


InraBlMHRJMlj 

•v^^'ivi 

mHHH 


Jtwrmitg  <rf  C«lif<ri|»ua* 


No. 

Division 

Range 

Shelf.. 

Received 


NOTES 

JIL        C\ 

>N        11/70 
Wj  ,v 

NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE 


AND 


ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 


BY 

JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER,  D.  D. 


NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER,  124   GRAND  STREET. 

LONDON :  SAMPSON  LOW,  SON  &  CO. 
1861. 


£.  a  5 


ENTEBED,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  I860, 

BY  CHABLES  SCEIBNEE, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  tho 
Southern  District  of  New  York. 


JOHX  P.  TROW, 

PRINTER,  STEREOTYPEB,  AND  ELECTROTYPEH( 

48  &  50  Greene  Street. 


PREFACE. 


THE  two  fragments  presented  in  this  volume, 
include  all  that  Dr.  Alexander  left  in  a  condition 
fit  for  the  press,  of  his  remarkable  Biblical  and 
Historical  Lectures.  It  had  long  been  his  purpose 
to  write  out  these  Lectures  on  Old  and  ISTew  Testa 
ment  History  and  Literature,  but  two  causes  ope 
rated  to  prevent  this :  First,  the  pressure  of  his 
professional  labours,  including  the  preparation  of 
his  Commentaries  ;  and  secondly,  the  rapid  strides 
he  was  constantly  making  in  the  knowledge  of  his 
subjects,  never  brought  him  to  the  point  when  he 
could  satisfy  his  own  mind  that  he  was  ready 
to  print.  It  was  this  fact  that  gave  such  vivacity 
and  originality  to  his  instructions,  his  lectures  to 
each  succeeding  class  being  the  outpouring  of  his 


IV  PEERAGE. 

own  acquisitions.  These  fragments  alone  remain 
to  us.  The  brief  skeletons  of  his  biblical  research, 
although  covering  hundreds  of  pages,  could  hardly 
be  arranged,  and  never  filled  out,  by  any  living 
man. 

I  have  felt  some  hesitation  in  printing  beyond 
§  401,  on  account  of  its  unfinished  condition,  but 
hoping  that  even  these  notes  may  be  suggestive  to 
the  student  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  I  concluded  to 

insert  them. 

S.  D.  A. 

NEW  YORK,  Nov. 


CONTENTS. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    LITERATURE. 


SECTION 

Statement  of  subject,  .       1 

Definitions,  Etymologies,      .  2-4 
Literature  in  general,  .       5 

Specific  applications,  .       6 

Sacred  Literature,    .  .       7 

The  name  Bible,       .  .       8 

Scripture,      .  .  .9 

Biblical  and  Scriptural,         .     10 
Biblical  Literature,  .  .11 

Its  wider  application,  .     12 

Interpretation  to  be  exclud 
ed,  ...  13 
Narrow  application,  .  14 
History  of  the  science,  .  15 
Uses  of  the  study,  .  .10 
Isagogical  theory  and  meth 
od,  .  .  17 
Home's  scheme,  .  .18 
Usual  division,  .  19,  20 
Historical  method,  .  .  21 
The  two  compared,  .  .  22 
Division  of  the  whole  sub 
ject,  .  .  .23 
Old  and  New  Testament,  .  24 
Grounds  for  the  distinction,  25 
Objection  answered,  .  26 
Order  to  be  observed,  .  27 
New  Testament  Literature,  .  28 
Twofold  method,  .  .  29 
German  Introductions,  .  30 
Guericke  and  Rexiss,  31,  32 
Historical  arrangement,  .  33 


SECTION 

Isagogical  arrangement,       .     34 
Topics  of  General  Introduc 
tion,  .  .  .35 
Seven      preliminary      ques 
tions,         .             .            36-39 
Objection  answered,  .     40 
Proposed  arrangement,       41,  42 
Proposed  reduction  by  elimi 
nation,      .             .             .43 
Remaining  topics,     .  .     44 
Intermediate  topic,  .  .     45 
New  Testament  Canon,         .     46 
Definitions  and  Etymologies,     47 
Question       stated— Twofold 

method,    .  .  .48 

First  fact,     .  .  .49 

Second  fact,  .  .     50 

Authority    ascribed    to   Fa 
thers  and  Councils,  .     51 
This  testimony  confirmed,    .     52 
Testimony  of  Athanasius,     .     53 
Gregory  of  Nazianzen — Cyril 
of  Jerusalem — Council  of 
Laodicea, .             .  .54 
Canon  of  Eusebius,  .             .     55 
"            Origen,      .              .     56 
"            Cyprian — Clemens 
Alexandrinus — Ircnscus,  .     57 
Muratori  Canon — Peshito,    .     58 
Testimony  beyond  this  point,     59 
No  secondary  Canon,            .     60 
Doubtful  Eobks,       .             .     61 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


SECTION 

Uniformity    of    Explanation 

necessary,  .  .02 

Djoubts  respecting  Epistle  to 

the  Hebrews,         .  .     C3 

Doubts  respecting  Epistle  of 

James,      .  .  .04 

The   four    smaller    Catholic 

Epistles,    .  .  .65 

The  Apocalypse,       .  .     G6 

General  result  of  this  exami 
nation,      .  .  .     G7 
Books   excluded    by   settle 
ment  of  the  Canon,           .     G8 
The  second  topic  of  General 

Introduction,         .  .     G9 

Four  leading  questions,        .     70 
First  question,  What  is  the 
original  Language  of  New 
Testament?  .  .71 

Second,  Why  was  New  Tes 
tament  written  in  differ 
ent  Language  from  Old 
Testament?  .  .  72 

Its    most   satisfactory    solu 
tion,  .  .'  .73 
Objection  to  this  and  its  an 
swer,         .             .             .74 
Twofold     answer     to    third 
question,  why  the   Greek 
Language  was  selected,    .     75 
Preparation    of    this     Lan 
guage  for  Christian  Reve 
lation,        .             .             .70 
The  fourth  question,  .     77 
Comparative  Philology,         .     78 
Classification  of  Languages,     79 
Difference     between     these 

families  of  Languages,      .     80 
The   true   relation    between 

Greek  and  Latin, .  .     81 

Their  origin  still  in  doubt,   .     82 
Difference  of  the  Greek  and 

Roman  greatness,  .     83 

Greek  Dialects,         .  .     84 

How  they  differ,       .  .     85 

Macedonian  Ascendancy,      .     86 
Alexandria,  .  .  .87 


SECTION 

The  Jews  brought  in  contact 

with  the  Greeks,  .  .     83 

Hellen— Hellas,         .  .     89 

E\\ijvifa,      .  .     90 

Hellenist  applied  to  the  Jews,  91 
Hellenistic  Dialect,  .  .  92 

Hellenistic  Literature,  .     93 

The  depositories  of  Hellenis 
tic  Literature,       .  .     94 
The  Septuagint,        .             .     95 
Josephus's  origin  of  Septua 
gint,           .             .             .96 
Discrepancies     iu     this    ac 
count,        .             .             .97 
The  oldest  undisputed  testi 
mony,        .             .             .97 
Question  as  to  the  extent  of 

the  Translation,    .  .     98 

The  most   valuable   part  of 

the  Pentateuch,    .  .     99 

How  regarded  by  the  Jews 

before  the  Advent,  .  100 

Other  Greek  versions,  .   101 

Extreme      opinions — Grin- 
field's  doctrine,     .  .102 
How  supported,        .  .  103 
Answer  to  these  arguments,    104 
The  true  mean  between  these 

extremes, .  .  .105 

Twofold  use  of  Septuagint — 

Old  Testament  use,          .     106 
Uses  with   respect   to  New 

Testament,  .  .107 

Uses  with  respect  to  quota 
tions,         .  .  .   108 
Its   philological   relation   to 

the  Neir  Testament,         .  109 
Its  technical  use,      .  .110 

Best  mode  of  studying  the 

Septuagint,  .  .111 

Best  helps  for  such  a  study,  112 
Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  .113 
Their  uses,  .  '  .  .114 

Their  division  into  classes,   .  115 
How  defined — their   admis 
sion  to  the  Septuagint,     .   116 
Their  differences,     .  .117 


CONTENTS. 


Vll 


SECTION 

How  to  be  used  by  students 

of  the  New  Testament,     .118 
Writings  of  Philo  and  Jose- 

phus,         .  .  .119 

History  of  Philo,      .  .120 

The  character  of  his  learning,  121 
The  value  of  his  writings,  .  122 
History  of  Josephus — his 

first  work,  .  .123 

His  second  great  work,  .  124 
A  third  work  still  extant,  .  125 
His  testimony  in  respect  to 

Christ,       .  .  .126 

The  language  in  which   he 

wrote,       .  .  .127 

Apostolic  Fathers,    .  .128 

Clement  of  Rome,    .  .   129 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  .  130 

Hernias,        .  .  .131 

Polycarp,      .  .  .   132 

Ignatius,       .  .  .133 

Papias,          .  .  .134 

Epistle  to  Diognetus,  .  135 

These  works  entitled  to  at 
tention,     .  .  .  136 
New  Testament  Apocrypha,    137 
Gospels    of    the     Hebrews, 

Egyptians,  Peter,  &c.,      .  138 
Gospel  of  Nicodemus — Acts 

of  Pilate,  .  .  .139 

Comparison  with  Old  Testa 
ment  Apocrypha,  .   140 
Their  bearing  on  the  ques 
tion  of  the  Canon,             .   141 


SECTION 

Their  philological  use,  .   142 

The  Greek  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  .  .  .  143 
The  Revival  of  Letters,  .  1*14 
Was  not  a  religious  move 
ment,  .  .  .145 
The  Biblical  Humanists,  .  146 
Erasmus,  .  .  .  147 
Beza — Henry  Stephens,  .  148 
Opposition  to  their  views,  .  148 
A  reaction,  .  .  .  149 
Hebraists  and  Purists,  .  150 
An  incidental  good  from 

this  controversy,  .  .151 

Ernesti — Winer,  *     .       152,  153 
Difference    between     Idiom 

and  Dialect,  .  .154 

New   Theory   developed   by 

Thicrsch,  .  .  .155 

Contrasted  with  Winer's  doc 
trine,         .  .  .  156 
Hellenistic  inferior  to  Attic 

Dialect,     .  .  .  157 

Conclusion  of  latest  German 

Writers,    .  .  .158 

The    way    of    investigating 

the  Dialect,  .  .159 

Lexicons,  &c.,  .  .   100 

Grammatik  des  Ncutesta- 
mentichen  Sprachidioms 
of  Winer, .  .  .101 

Green's  treatise  of  New  Tes 
tament  Grammar,  .  102 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 


SECTION 

Important    preliminaries    to 

this  study,  .  .       1 

Two  preliminary  questions,          2 
Etymology  of  terms  the  first 

thing,         .  .  .3 

Etymology  of  English  word 

History — its  definition,  4 

One  exception,          .  .       5 

Distinction   between   Objec 
tive   and   Subjective    His 
tory,          .  .  .6 
An  example  of  this,  .       7 
Subjective  History — its  defi 
nition,       .             .            .8 
Can  never  be  exhausted,  9 
All  History  eclectic,              .     10 
Elimination  and  division  of 

History,    .  .  .11 

What  is  meant  by  Elimina 
tion,          .  .  .12 
What   is   to    be    eliminated 

from  History,        .  .13 

How  elimination  differs  from 

division,    .  .  .11 

Division    either   mechanical 

or  rational,  .  .15 

Civil  and  Religious  History,     16 
History  of  the  Church,  17 

Definition  of  Church  History,     18 
Etymology     of     the     word 

Church,      .  .  19,  20 

The  use  of  this  Greek  word 


SECTION 

in    the   Classics    and  the 
Bible,        .  .  .21 

The  widest  application  of 
the  phrase  "  Church  His 
tory,"  .  .  .22 

The  early  existence  of  the 
Church,  .  .  .23 

The  promise  of  a  Saviour 
(Gen.  3,  15),  .  .  24 

How  this  promise  gives  com 
plexion  to  Church  His 
tory,  .  .  .25 

The  extent  of  Church  His 
tory,          .  .  .26 
I  Its  division  into  Biblical  and 
Ecclesiastical,               .     27,  28 

*The  difference  between  them 
essential  —  one  inspired, 
the  other  uninspired,  29 

Subdivision  of  Biblical  His 
tory  into  Old  Testament 
and  New  Testament  His 
tory,  .  .  .30 

The  three  divisions  of  Church 
History,  Old  Testament, 
New  Testament,  and  Ec 
clesiastical,  unequal  in 
chronological  dimensions,  31 

Ecclesiastical  History,  .     32 

Its  relation    to   Biblical  or 

Sacred  History,     .  .33 

i  The  relation  of  Ecclesiastical 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


SECTION 

History  to  other  sciences 
or  fields  of  knowledge,  34 

Its   relation   to    Geography 
Chronology,  and  Archaeol 


Historical  Geography, 

Chronology, 

Uses  of  Historical  Chronol 
ogy,  .  .  .38,  39 

Archaeology,  .  .     40 

Cannot  be  separated  from 
History,  .  .  41,  42 

Limitation  of  Archaeology,        43 

Auxiliary  Studies — Statistics 
— Diplomatics,  and  Histor 
ical  Philosophy.  .  .  44 

Utility  of  History  in  general,     45 

Abuse  of  the  Maxim,  "  His 
tory  is  Philosophy  teach 
ing  by  Examples,"  .  46 

Benefits  of  Ecclesiastical  His 
tory,  .  .  .  47,  48 

Salutary  moral  influences  of 
the  study  of  History,  .  49 

The  sources  and  materials 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  50 

Uninspired,  numerous,  and 
diversified,  .  .51 

Have  been  divided  into  Mon 
umental  and  Documen 
tary,  .  .  .52 

What  the  first  class  includes,     53 

The  authorities  of  this  class 
are  originals,  .  .  54 

The  arch  of  Titus  and  an 
cient  Christian  tombs  ex 
amples,  .  .  .55 

Not  as  abundant  as  Docu 
mentary,  .  .  .50 

Division  of  Documentary 
History  into  Private  or 
Personal,  Public  or  Offi 
cial,  .  .  .57 

Definition  of  Public  Docu 
ments,  .  .  .58 

Documents   of  the  first  au 
thority,      .  .  .59 
1* 


SECTION 

The   extent  of  these  mate 
rials,          .  .  .60 
An  inferior  class,      .  .61 
Their  extent,             .            .     62 
A  third  class,            .             .     63 
Symbolical    Books,    Creeds, » 
Confessions,     Catechisms, 
&c.,            .             .             .64 
Ancient  Liturgies,    .  .     65 
Rules  and  Statutes  of  Reli 
gious  bodies,         .  .     66 
The  Catalogue  of  materials 

not  exhausted,      .  .     67 

Definition  of  Private  Docu 
ments,       .  .  .68 
The  highest  class  of  these,        69 
Another  class,           .  .     70 
A  residuary  class,     .  .71 
This  class  not  to  be  under 
rated,        .             .  .72 
Who  have  used  these  mate 
rials,          .            .     73,  74,  75 
The  first  three  centuries  al 
most  a  blank  in  works  on 
Ecclesiastical  History,       .     76 
Works  of  Hegesippus,  .     77 
Julius  Africanus,      .             .78 
Not  extant,  .             .            .79 
Why   Ecclesiastical   History 
was  neglected  at  this  pe 
riod,           .             .     80,  81,  82 
Eusebius  and  his  writings,  83,  84 
Epiphanius — Philostorgius — 

Sidetes,      .  .  .85 

Socrates —  Sozomen  —  Theo- 

doret,        ,  .  .86 

Theodoras— Evagrius,          .     87 
Histories  of  the  Latin  Church 
mere   translations — Sulpi- 
cius    Severus — Orosius — 
Rufinus — Cassiodorus,       .     £8 
Byzantine  Historians,  .     89 

Effect  of  the  subjugation  of 
Western  Roman  Empire 
upon  historical  works,  90 

William  of  Tyre— Matthew 
Paris,  .  .  .90 


X 


CONTEXTS. 


6ECTIOX 

Gregory     of   Tours  —  Beda 

Venerabilis,  .  .91 

Church  History  debased  by 

increase  of  superstition,         92 
The  lowest  ebb  of  historical 
knowledge  in  the  age  be 
fore  the  Reformation,       .     93 
Revival  of  Letters,  .  .     94 

Relation  of  historical  knowl 
edge  to  Reformation,        .     95 
Polemical   writings    of    the 
great  reformers — in  what 
sense  historical,     .  .     96 

The  first  complete  Ecclesias 
tical    History — a  product 
of  Lutheran  Reformation,     97 
Flacius,         .  .  .98 

His    scheme    of    associated 

labour,  .  .     99,  100 

The  first  appearance  of  the 

work,         .  .  .101 

Its  effect  upon  the  age,    102,  103 
Its  effect  upon  the  Church 

of  Rome,  .  .  .104 

Baronius,      .  .  .105 

His  "  Annals,"          .  .   106 

Reprinted  several  times,          107 
These  works  the  parents  of  a 

vast  and  varied  Literature,  108 
Fra  Paoli,     .  .  .109 

Morinus  —  Petavius  —  Tilli- 
mont — R.    Simon — Floury 
— Xatalis  Alexander,         .   110 
Bossuet,        .  .111 

Hottinger  —  Spanhcim — the 
Bassnages — Daille —  Blon- 
del — Salmasius,  .  .112 

Usher — Pearson — Beveridge 
— Burnet — Dodwell — Cave 
— Bull— Bingham,  .113 

Scheme  of  Calixtus,  .  114 

Spener — Seckendorf — a  new 
method  of  writing  Church 
History,  .  .  .115 

Pushed  to  extreme  by  God 
frey  Arnold,  .  .116 
The  Historians  of  the  latter 


SECTION 

half    of    eighteenth   cen 
tury  more  moderate,         .  117 
John  Laurence  Mosheim,     .  118 
His  works,    .  .  .119 

Their  character,        .  .120 

The  influence  of  his  writings 

upon  his  successors,          .  121 
Rise  of  German  Rationalism 

or  Neology,  .  .122 

Its  effects  upon  Church  His 
tory,        .  .  .123 
Monographs,             .  .124 
Their  value,               .  .125 
Neander,       .             .  .126 
His  works — Gieseler,             .  127 
Neander   and   Gieseler   con 
trasted,      .             .  .128 
Their  works  contrasted,  129,  130 
Guericke,      .             .             .131 
Jacobi,          .             .             .132 
Schaff—  Lange,         .             .133 
Hase,             .             .             .134 
Kurtz,           .             .             .  135 
Effect    of    modern   German 
changes  upon  Roman  Ca 
tholic  Historians,  .  .136 
Cultivation     of    History    in 

England,   .  .  .137 

Milner,          .  .  .138 

Milman,         .  .  .139 

J.  C.  Robertson— J.  J.  Blunt,  140 
Charles  Hardwick,    .  .141 

"Ecclesiastical  History"  of 

Palmer,     .  .  .142 

"Method,"    .  .  .   143 

What  is  meant  by  it,  .  144 

It  is  essential,  145,  146,  147 

Anecdotic  composition,        .   148 
The   chronological   arrange 
ment  of  events,          .  149,150 
The  topical  arrangement  of 

events,  .  .   151,  152 

The  combination  of  these  es 
sential  to  the  production 
of  history,  153,  154,  155 

Ancient  writers  on  Ecclesias 
tical  History  seldom  rise 


CONTEXTS. 


xi 


BECTIOX 

above  Chronological  Ar 
rangement,  .  .156 

Magdeburg  Centuriators,      .  157 

Their  Chronological  Ar 
rangement,  .  .158 

Topical  arrangement,       159,  160 

Their  immediate  purpose  was 
polemical,  .  .161 

This  method  constructed  a 
priori,  .  .  .162 

Intended  for  the  early  cen 
turies,  .  .  .  163 

Not  intended  to  be  perpetual,  164 

It  has  given  character  to  sub 
sequent  historiography,  .  165 

The  real  merit  of  the  plan 
of  the  Centuriators,  .  166 

Cannot  be  read  continuously,  167 

The  Romanists  adopt  a  sim 
pler  form,  .  .168 

A  change  in  the  mode  of 
treating  Ecclesiastical  His 
tory  became  necessary,  .  169 

The  change  was  gradual — 
reaches  its  culmination  in 
the  Institutiones  of  Mo- 
sheim,  .  .  170,  171 

Mosheim's  use  of  the  Centu- 
rial  Arrangement,  .  172,  173 

Its  disadvantages,     .  .  174 

Methods  of  Ecclesiastical 
Historiography  increase 
during  the  last  half  cen 
tury,  .  .  .175 

Germans  retain  the  Biblical 
system  and  change  the 
chronological  arrange 
ment  of  subjects,  .  176 

The  nature  of  this  change,      177 

Their  change  in  the  topical 
arrangement,  .  .  178 

Type  of  all  these  modern 
methods,  .  .  .  179 

Regarded  by  the  Germans 
and  their  imitators  as  the 
ultimatum  of  improve 
ment,  .  .  .180 


8ECTTOX 

Objections  to  it,        .  .  181 

Objection  of  this  school  to 
the  old  arrangement,  .  182 

The  objection  partially  ad 
mitted,  but  with  two  quali 
fying  circumstances,  183,  184 

A  more  specific  charge 
against  the  centurial  ar 
rangement,  .  .185 

The  answer,      .  .  186,  187 

A  qualifying  circumstance  in 
favour  of  old  arrange 
ment,  .  .  .188 

The  modern  German  school 
not  united  on  one  scheme,  189 

Difficulties  of  the  modern 
periodical  arrangement,  190 

Partial  changes  in  the  topi 
cal  and  rubrical  arrange 
ment,  .  .  .191 

The  essence  of  the  rubrical 
arrangement,  .  .192 

Objections  to  this  system,    .  193 

The  historical  objection,  194,  195 

Objection  drawn  from  anal 
ogy,  .  .  .  196 

Objection  from  practical  ef 
fects,  .  .  .  197,  198 

An  improvement  of  both 
chronological  and  topical 
arrangement  proposed,  .  199 

Change  m  the  topical  part,    .200 

Xot  new,  .  .201 

Change  in  chronological  di 
vision,  .  .  202 

How  this  is  to  be  accom 
plished,  .  .  203,  204 

Its  advantages,  .  .  205 

The  difference  between  this 
method  and  the  one  it  su 
persedes,  .  .  .  206 

This  course  of  History  di 
vided  into  two  unequal 
parts,  .  .  .207 

The  first  division  a  general 
survey,  .  .  .  208 

Confusion  avoided  by  view- 


Xll 


CONTENTS. 


SECTION 

ing  the  periodologies  suc 
cessively  and  seriatim,  .  209 

Two  conditions  essential  in 
this  process,  .  .  210,  211 

Begin  with  the  simple  and 
familiar,  .  .  .212 

Both  of  these  conditions 
meet  by  dividing  Church 
History  into  Ancient,  Mid 
dle,  and  Modern  Ages,  .  213 

The  simplicity  of  this  mode, .  214 

Analogies  to  prove  its  reality 
and  usefulness,  .  .215 

These  divisions  useful  even 
though  imaginary,  .  216 

The  boundary  between  the 
Middle  ages  and  Modern 
tolerably  well  defined,  .  217 

Between  First  and  Middle 
not  so  well,  .  .218 

A  general  knowledge  of 
these  divisions  useful,  .  219 

The  earliest  limits  assigned 
to  the  ancient  period — be 
ginning  of  fourth  century,  220 

The  latest  limits — close  of 
seventh  century,  .  .  221 

Midway  between  these  an 
other — end  of  sixth  cen 
tury,  .  .  .  223 

One  on  either  side  of  this 
mean — end  of  sixth  cen 
tury — close  of  eighth  cen 
tury,  .  .  223,  224 

Amidst  varieties,  the  great 
boundaries  still  distinct,  .  225 

These  three  periods  distin 
guished  as  periods  of  For 
mation,  Deformation,  and 
Reformation,  .  .  226 

More  precisely  the  periods  of 
Foundation  and  Division, 
Consolidation  and  Corrup 
tion,  Reformation  and  Di 
vision,  .  .  .  227 

Descriptions  of  these  periods 
might  be  multiplied,  .  228 


SECTION 

Schaff 's  description,     .  229,  230 
He  prognosticates  a  fourth 

age,  .  .  .231 

The  ethnological  distinction 

of  Kurtz,  .  .  .232 

These  views  to  be  combined    . 
with     what     is     already 
known,      .  .  .  233 

First    great  feature   of   the 

Ancient  Period,     .  .  234 

A  second  feature,      .  .  235 

A  third,         .  .  .236 

A  fourth,       .  .  .237 

A  last,  .  .  .  238 

The  first  great  negative  dis 
tinction  of  the  Middle 
Age,  .  .  .239 

The  great  schism,     .  .  240 

The  theological  or  doctrinal 
distinction  of  the  Middle 
Age,  .  .  .241 

The  worst  peculiarity  of  this 

age,  .  .  .242 

Its  only  redeeming  feature,  .  243 
The  first  great  feature  of  the 

Modern  Age,          .  .  244 

A  second,      .  .  .  245 

The  Theology  of  this  age,    .  246 
The  divisions  introduced  by 

Reformation,         .  .  247 

Growth   of  heresies   in  this 

age,  .  .  .248 

An  intermediate  division,     .  249 
The  first  six  centuries — two 

periods,     .  .  .  250 

The  seventh  and  eighth  cen 
turies  neutral  ground,       .  251 
Division  of  Middle  Ages  not 

so  obvious,  .  .  252 

A  proposed  division,  .  253 

Characteristic      feature      of 
each  century  to  aid  mem 
ory,  .  .  .  254,  255 
Characteristic  of  1st  century,  256 
"            "  2d       "     ' .  257 
"            "  3d       "       .  258 
"  4th      "       .   259 


CONTENTS. 


Xlll 


SECTION 

Characteristic  of  5th  century,  260 
"  "  6th      "     ".  261 

Close  of  doctrinal  contro 
versies  and  the  series  of 
ancient  councils,  .  .  262 

Rise  and  progress  of  Moham 
medanism,  .  .  2,63 

Characteristic  feature  of  9th 
century,  .  .  .  264 

Characteristic  feature  of  10th 
century,  .  .  .  265 

Characteristic  feature  of  llth 
century,  .  .  .  266 

Characteristic  feature  of  12th 
century,  .  .  .  267 

Characteristic  feature  of  13th 
century,  .  .  .  268 

Characteristic  feature  of  14th 
century,  .  .  .  269 

Characteristic  feature  of  15th 
century,  .  .  .  270 

Characteristic  feature  of  16th 
century,  .  .  .271 

Characteristic  feature  of  17th 
century,  .  ..  .272 

Characteristic  feature  of  18th 
century,  .  .  .  273 

Characteristic  feature  of  19th 
century,  .  .  .  274 

Periodologies,  .  .275 

Great  diversities  of, .  .276 

A  joint  use  of  these  recom 
mended,  .  .  .277 

The  choice  of  periodologies 
how  guided,  .  .  278 

Arranged  for  comparison,    .  279 

Periodologies  of  Gieseler,  Ne- 
ander,  Guericke  (Jacobi), 
Ease,  Kurtz,  and  Schaff,  .  280 

Gieseler's  entitled  to  prece 
dence,  .  .  .281 

How  all  periodologies  are 
formed,  .  .  .  282 

Modern  periodologies  vary 
as  to  the  terminus  a  quo 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  .  283 

Primary  epochs  of  Gieseler, .  284 


.  SECTION 

I  Salient   points   and    critical 

junctures  of  Gieseler,        .  285 
What  they  are,         .  .  286 

The  field  divided  and  subdi 
vided,  making  twelve  pe 
riods  in  all,  .  .  287 
Gieselers  first  great  period,  .  288 
This  divided  into  three,        .  289 
His  second  great  period,       .  290 
Subdivided  into  three,          .  290 
His  third  great  period  divid 
ed  into  three,        .  .  291 
His  fourth,    .             .  .  292 
These  subdivisions  arranged 

in  a  continued  series,        .  293 
Has  not  met  with  currency 

among  later  writers,          .  294 
Its  specific  faults,      .  .  295 

Xeander's   Periodology  free 

from  these  faults,  .  296 

His  Periodology,       .  .  297 

Guericke's  Periodology,  298,  299 
Jacobi's,        .  .  .  800 

Periodology  of  Hase,  .  301 

His  divisions,  .  .  302 

His  subdivisions,       .  .  303 

Adopted     by     Kurtz     with 

modification,          .  .   304 

The  great  Phases  of  Kurtz,  .  305 
The  first  two  Phases,  .  306 

Subdivided  into  minor  or  in 
termediate  lines,  .  .  307 
Periodology  of  Schaff,  .  308 
His  divisions,             .  .309 
His  subdivision  of  ages  into 
three  periods — subdivision 
of  first  age,           .             .310 
Subdivision  of  the  second,  .  311 
"     "    third,       .  312 
These    smaller    periods    ar 
ranged  in  continuous  series,  313 
Comparison  of  other  period 
ologies  with  this,  .  .314 
Epochs  of  Englehardt,         .  315 
Periods  of       "                      .  316 
Periodology  of  Thielc,         .  317 
"             "  Lange,          .  318 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


SECTION 

His  subdivision,        .  .319 

Division  of  Niedncr,  .  320 

Of  Lindner  with  his  subdivi 
sions,  .  321,  322,  323,  324 
Periodology  of  Frickc,  .  325 
The  division  of  Abzog,  .  326 
Periodology  of  Postel,  .  327 
Of  recent  English  writers,  .  328 
Of  Palmer,  .  .  .329 

Of  Milman,  .  .  .330 

His  works,    .  .  .331 

His  "Periods,"          .  .  332 

The  use  of  Epochs,  .  .  333 

Their    value,  .  .  334 

Their  application,  335,   336,  337, 
338,  339,  340,  341 
After    the    epochs   another 

class  may  be  placed,          .  342 
A  residuary  class,     .  .  343 

A  catalogue  of  Periodologies,  344 
The    best    mode    of    using 

epochs,      .  .  .  345 

Another  method,      .  .  346 

Specimen     of     the     above 

method,     .  .  .347 

The  great  changes  indicated 

by  this  method,     .  .  348 

Different  ways  of  construct 
ing  tables,  .  .  349 
Sources  of  materials,  .  350 
The  topical  survey  of  the 

field,          .  .  .351 

Etymology  of  the  word  top 
ical,  .  .  .  352 
Application  of  the  word,  353,  354 
What  is  a  topic,  .  .355 
Its  definition,  .  .  356,  357 
The  definition  completed,  .  358 
The  arrangement  of  topics 

varies,       .  .  .  359 

Its  advantages,         .  .  3GO 

Two  methods    of   selecting 

and  arranging  topics,        .  361 
The  Analytic  and  Synthetic 

methods,  .  .  .  362 

The  first  the  best  for  present 
purposes,  .  .  363 


SECTION 

The  second  for  one  who 
makes  this  a  study  of  life,  364 

Another    distinction,  .  365 

Both  views  may  be  turned 
to  good  account,  .  366,  367 

Ecclesiastical  History — what 
it  is,  thus  viewed,  .  .  368 

No*  exclusive  method  practi 
cable,  .  .  369,  370 

How  Ecclesiastical  History 
might  be  divided — objec 
tion  to  it,  .  .  .  37 1 

Same  objection  does  not  lie 
against  other  divisions,  .  372 

The  best  method,      .  .  373 

The  general  arrangement 
must  be  chronological,  .  374 

In  selecting  topics,  the  best 
events  to  begin  with,  .  375 

Such  an  event,  the  destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem,  .  376,  377 

The  proximate  causes  of  it,  .  378 

Flavius  Josephus,  the  princi 
pal  authority,  .  .379 

The  providential  instruments 
of  it,  .  .  .  380 

Where  the  details  of  it  may 
be  found,  .  .  .381 

Its  effect  upon  the  Jews,      .  382 

Its  political  effect,    .  .  383 

Effect   upon   their   religion, 

384,  385 

Effect  upon  their  persecu 
tions,  .  .  .  386 

Primary  effect  upon  Chris 
tian  Church,  .  .  387 

Rise  of  Jewish  Christian 
sects,  .  .  .  388 

How  distinguished  from  the 
body  of  Christians,  .  389 

Differences     among     them 
selves,       .  .  .390 
;  Their  view  of  the  Lord,       .  391 
|  How  they  regarded  Christ,  .  392 

How  they  regarded  Paul,     .  393 

Sources  of  our  information 
of  them,  .  .  .  •  .  394 


CONTENTS. 


XV 


SECTION 

T\vo  sects,     .  .  .  395 

The    Nazareans     or    Naza- 

renes,        .  ..  .  396 

The    Ebionites,  .  397,  398 

When  they  arose,     .  .  399 

First  mention  of  their  gospel 

by  Fathers,  .  .  400 

When  the  canon  closes,  .  401 
Objective  close  of  canon,  .  402 
Eusebian  classification,  .  403 
Doubts  gradually  clear  up,  .  404 
Not  a  mere  passive  acquies 
cence,  .  .  .  405 
Unauthorized  attempts  to 

write  the  life  of  Christ,  .  406 
Apocryphal  literature,  .  407 
All  not  heretical,  .  .  408 

Some    claim    places   in  the 

canon,       .  .  .  409 

Classification  of  Apocryphal 

gospels,     .  .  .  410 

Supplementary  gospels,  .411 
Evangelium  Nativitatis,  .  412 
Gospel  of  Joachim  and  Anna,  413 
Of  Joseph  the  Carpenter,  .  414 
Of  Christ's  Infancy,.  .  415 

Supplementary   accounts   of 

his  Passion,  .  .  416 

Acts  of  Pilate,  .  .  417 

Apocryphal  Acts,      .  .418 

"          Epistles,  .  419 

"          Apocalypses,     .  420 
"          Prophecies,        .  421 
Heathen  "  .  422 

Disciplinary  Pseudepigrapha,  423 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  .  424 
Apostolical  Canons,  .  425 

History  of  Canon  thus  illus 
trated,       .  ..  .  426 
Apostolical  Fathers,  .  427 
Their  Simplicity  and  Piety,     428 
Modern  disposition  to  exag 
gerate,      .             .  .  429 
Surprising   only   to    Papists 

and  Rationalists,  .  .   430 

Providential     inequality    of 
Apostles  and  Fathers,       .  431 


SECTION 

Apostles,  .  .  432 

School  of  Paul,         .  .  433 

Barnabas,  .  434 

Hernias,    .  .  435 

John  and  Ignatius,  436 
Polycarp,  .  437 

Papias,      .  .  438 

Anonymous  School,  .  439 

Early  propagation  of  Gospel,  440 
Dearth  of  Information,  .  441 
Where  the  Gospel  spread,  .  442 
Mode  of  Propagation,  .  443 

Twofold  conflict  of  Church 

in  eighteenth  century,       .  444 
Heathenism,  .  .  445 

Twofold  preparation  for  Gos 
pel,  .  .  446 
State  of  Heathenism  at  Ad 
vent,          .            .  .  447 
Barbarous  Religions,             .  448 
Greek  and  Roman  Heathen 
ism,            .             .             .449 
Mania  for  new  religions,       .  450 
Relation    of    Philosophy    to 

Mythology,  .  .451 

School  of  Greek  Philosophy,'  452 
Heathen  view  of  Christianity,  453 
Reform  of  Heathenism,  .  454 
Apollonius  of  Tyana,  .  455 

Revival  of  old  mysteries,  .  456 
The  Eclectic  Philosophy,  .  457 
Basis  not  Christian,  .  458 

Its  Founder,  .  .  459 

Universal    among    educated 
men  at  end  of  third  cen 
tury,          .  .  .400 
Outline  of  tin*  «' '-torn,  .  461 
Effect  of  Cliiv-iiuuity,            .  462 
Lucian,          .             .             .  463 
First  formal  attack  on  Chris 
tianity,      .             •             .  464 
Porphyry,     .             »             .  465 
Ilierocles,     .             .             .  466 
Best  Christian  writers  of  the 

age  called  forth,    .  .  467 

Oldest    apologists — not    ex 
tant,  .  .  468,  469 


xvi 


CONTENTS. 


SECTION 

Apologists  still  extant,     470-473 
General   character  of  these 

Apologies,  .  .  474 

Good  end  promoted  by  bad 

means,       .  .  .475 

Persecution,  .  .476 

Primary  source  of,    .  .  477 

First  Martyr,  .  .478 

First  check  to  Jewish  perse 
cution,      .  .  .479 
Second  source   of  persecu 
tion,          .            .             .  480 
Less  tolerant  to  Judaism,     .  481 
Popular    prejudices   against 

the  Christians,       .  .  482 

How  promoted,  .  483,  484 

Guericke's    classification    of 

persecutions,         .  .  485 

Persecution  of  first  century,  486 
First  real  persecution,  487,  488 
New  era  in  history  of  perse 
cution,  .  .  .  489 
Extent  of  persecution,  .  490 
Hadrian,  .  .  .  491 
Antoninus  Pius,  .  .  492 
Marcus  Aurelius,  .  .  493 
Persecutions  general  but  not 

uniform,    .  .  .  494 

Old  tradition  of  Legio  Ful- 

minea,       .  .  .  495 

Persecuting  laws  unrepealed,  496 
Septimius  Severus,    .  .  497 


SECTION 

Persecution  in  Africa,  .  498 

Caracalla,      .  .  .  499 

Syncetistic  mania,    .  .  500 

Alexander  Severus,  .  501 

Maximin  the  Thracian,  .  502 
Gordian,  .  .  .  503 

Pauses  between  persecutions,  504 
Decian  persecution,  .  505 

Church  weakened  by  repose,  506 
Death  of  Decius,  .  .  507 

Valerian,       .  .  .  508 

Martyrs  at  Rome,      .  .  509 

Gallienus,      .  .  .  510 

Aurelian,      .  .  .511 

Another  interval,      .  .512 

Diocletian,    .  .  .  513 

Maximin,       .  .  .  514 

Galerius,       .  .  .515 

Meeting  of  Emperors  at  Ni- 

comedia,  .  .  .  516 

New  edicts  of  persecution,  .  517 
Change  in  government,  .  518 
Death-bed  of  Galerius,  .  519 
Constantine,  .  .  520 

Ten  Persecutions,     .  .  521 

Their  names,  .  .  522 

Severity  of  Persecutors  and 
number  of  martyrs  —  a 
question,  .  .  .  523 

Noble  army  of  martyrs,  .  524 
Good  effects  of  persecution,  525 
Positive  bad  effects,  .  526 


NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 


§  1.  From  lino,  to  daub  or  smear  (supine,  li- 
tum\  comes  litera,  a  mark,  and  more  especially  a 
significant  mark — a  character — a  letter  of  the  al 
phabet.  The  plural  (Liter CB)  denotes — 1,  the  letters 
of  the  alphabet  collectively — 2,  then  any  combina 
tion  of  them  in  a  written  composition — whether 
smaller  (e.  g.  a  letter,  or  epistle,  made  up  of  a  few 
letters ;  or,  as  we  say,  "  a  few  lines  "),  or  larger  (as 
a  book) — 3,  then  books  in  general,  or  in  the  aggre 
gate — and  then  4  (subjectively),  the  knowledge  of 
books  ("  book-learning  "),  education — as  in  Cicero's 
phrases,  "  sine  literis,"  "  nescire  literas,"  the  French 
"  belles-lettres,"  and  the  English  "  man  of  letters," 

§  1.  What  is  the  ultimate  root  of  literature  ?  What  is  the  pri 
mary  and  secondary  sense  of  litera?  What  are  the  idiomatic  uses 
of  the  plural  ?  What  traces  of  the  same  in  French  and  English  ? 


4:  NEW  TESTAMENT  LITEEATUEE. 

meaning  much  more  than  a  man  who  "  knows  his 
letters." 

§  2.  From  litera  itself  comes  the  adjective  lite 
ratus,  in  form  a  participle,  but  without  a  cgrre- 
sponding  verb  (as  in  English),  meaning  primarily 
lettered,  i.  e.  marked  with  letters,  as  a  book  is  let 
tered  by  the  binder — but  secondarily,  acquainted 
with  (possessed  of)  letters,  (in  the  higher  sense,) 
i.  e.  educated,  learned.  The  plural  of  this  Latin 
word  (literati}  is  still  used  in  English  •  and  although 
the  old  derivative  (literate)  is  obsolete,  except  in 
certain  technical  or  legal  forms,  its  previous  exist 
ence  is  attested  by  its  opposite,  illiterate,  uneducat 
ed,  ignorant. 

§  3.  From  literatus  (or  from  literoB  directly) 
comes  the  abstract  term,  literatura,  meaning,  in 
the  classics,  first,  alphabetic  writing/  then  gram 
mar,  philology,  the  science  of  language  •  and  last 
ly,  learning,  education,  or  the  knowledge  of  books. 

As  distinguished  from  science  in  modern  par 
lance,  literature  may  be  defined  as  the  knowledge 
of  books  as  books ;  not  merely  their  contents  or 

§  2.  What  is  the  primary  and  secondary  sense  of  literatus? 
What  traces  of  this  word  in  English  usage  ? 

§  3.  What  is  the  classical  usage  of  literature,  ?  What  is  litera 
ture,  as  distinguished  from  science? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  5 

substance,  but  their  form,  text,  language,  style,  ori 
gin,  and  all  that  constitutes  their  [critical  and  lite 
rary]  history. 

§  4.  The  generic  term,  as  thus  defined,  admits 
of  various  specific  applications  to  particular  classes 
or  kinds  of  books,  whether  differing  in  form  of 
composition  (as  poetical  and  prose  literature),  or  in 
date  (as  ancient  and  modern  literature),  or  in  lan 
guage  (as  Greek  and  English  literature),  or  in  sub 
ject  (as  medical  and  historical  literature).  In  this 
sense  every  science  (or  branch  of  systematic  knowl 
edge)  may  be  said  to  have  its  "  literature  ;  "  i.  e.,  a 
collection  of  writings  peculiar  to  itself.  Thus  the 
modern  Germans  use  the  term  Litteratur  to  denote 
the  bibliography  of  any  given  subject. 

§  5.  Among  the  many  possible  distinctions  and 
divisions  of  this  nature,  one  of  the  most  familiar, 
and  at  the  same  time  most  connected  with  our 
present  studies,  is  that  of  Sacred  and  Profane  Liter 
ature. 

Profane,  according  to  its  Latin  etymology  (pro 

§  4.  How  may  this  generic  term  be  made  specific  ?  What  rela 
tion  has  literature  to  the  sciences  ?  How  do  the  Germans  use  the 
term  litteratur? 

§  5.  What  is  the  correlative  or  opposite  of  Sacred  Literature  ? 
What  is  the  derivation  of  Profane  ?  What  is  its  positive  meaning  ? 
What  is  its  negative  meaning?  Hpw  may  they  be  exemplified? 
How  is  this  to  be  defined? 


6  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEKATUKE. 

fano,  before  the  temple,  outside  of  the  consecrated 
precincts),  is  primarily  negative  and  simply  means 
not  sacred,  though  in  both  languages  it  soon  ac 
quired  the  positive  and  stronger  sense  of  irreverent, 
impious,  and  even  blasphemous.  The  difference  of 
the  primary  and  secondary  meaning  may  be  seen 
in  the  equally  familiar  combinations,  "  profane 
history  "  and  "  profane  swearing."  The  primary 
or  negative  sense  must  be  determined  by  that  of 
the  correlative  expression,  "  sacred." 

§  6.  Sacred  Literature  may  be  taken  either  in  a 
wider  or  more  restricted  application.  In  the  for 
mer,  it  denotes  (objectively)  the  aggregate  of  books, 
or  (subjectively)  the  knowledge  of  such  books,  on 
sacred  subjects,  and  is  then  equivalent  to  Religious 
Literature.  In  the  latter,  it  denotes  the  aggregate 
(or  knowledge)  of  sacred  writings,  i.  e.  inspired, 
and  therefore  of  divine  authority ;  and  is  then 
equivalent  to  Biblical  Literature,  or  the  literature 
of  the  Bible. 

§  7.  This  term  (Bible)  is  immediately  derived 

§  6.  What  is  the  twofold  sense  of  Sacred  Literature  ?  What  is 
its  wider  application  ?  What  is  its  narrower  application  ? 

§  7.  What  is  the  derivation  of  Bible?  What  was  the  primary 
sense  of  j8i'#Aos  ?  What  was  its  secondary  sense  ?  How  is  $i$\iov 
used  in  the  New  Testament  ?  How  is  0tj8Aos  there  applied  ?  When 
was  it  first  applied  to  the  whole  Word  of  God  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  7 

from  the  Latin  and  Greek  plural  (BibUa\  a  dimin 
utive  of  /3t'/3\o9  (sometime  s  written  /3u/3Xo9),  which 
originally  means  the  papyrus  plant,  the  inner  bark 
of  which  was  used  of  old  as  a  material  for  writing 
— hence  our  paper,  though  composed  of  an  entirely 
different  substance.  A  secondary  use  of  both  the 
English  and  the  Greek  word  is  to  signify  any  piece 
of  writing  (as  a  bill  of  divorcement,  Matt.  19,  7 ; 
or  a  book),  in  which  sense  it  is  applied  to  the  divi 
sions  of  the  Old  Testament — the  "  book  of  Hoses  " 
(Mark  12,  26)— the  "  book  of  Psalms  "  (Luke  20, 
42)— the  "  book  of  the  Prophets  "  (Acts  7, 42)— but 
never  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  collec 
tively.  Its  application  to  the  entire  Word  of  God, 
as  the  Book  of  Books,  or  Book  /car  e^o^rjv,  appears 
to  have  been  introduced  by  Chrysostom. 

§  8.  Another  common  name  for  the  whole  Word 
of  God  is  Scripture,  from  scriptura,  scribo,  corre 
sponding  to  the  Greek  jpa^ij  from  7pa</>o>,  meaning, 
originally,  any  writing  whether  great  or  small ; 
but  applied  emphatically  sometimes  to  a  single  text 
or  passage  (as  in  Luke  4,  21) — sometimes  to  seve 
ral  in  connection  (as  in  Acts  1,  16) — sometimes  to 

§  8.  What  is  the  derivation  of  Scripture  ?  How  is  ypcupt  ap 
plied  in  the  New  Testament  ?  How  is  the  plural  (ypatyai  and 
ypdfj.pa.Ta)  applied  ?  What  epithets  are  coupled  with  these  plurals? 
Where  does  the  phrase  "  Sacred  Scriptures  "  occur  ? 


8  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 

the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  (as  in  John  10,  35. 
2  Tim  3,  16) — which  is  still  more  frequently  de 
noted  by  the  plural  (ypafai,  scriptures)  of  which 
some  find  the  earliest  example  in  Daniel  9,  2. 
(Compare  John  2,  22  and  5,  39.)  With  this  plural 
Paul  employs  the  epithets  holy  (Rom.  1,  2)  and 
sacred  (2  Tim.  3,  15),  which  are  confounded  in  the 
English  version. 

§  9.  The  English  adjectives  derived  from  these 
names  (Biblical  and  Scriptural],  although  substan 
tially  synonymous,  are  not  entirely  convertible  in 
usage  ;  the  latter  being  commonly  employed  to  ex 
press  internal  agreement  with  the  "Word  of  God, 
the  former  wrhat  externally  belongs  to  it,  as  in  the 
phrases,  "  scriptural  doctrine,"  "  biblical  learning," 
in  which  the  epithets  cannot  conveniently  be  inter 
changed. 

§  10.  Applying  to  the  Book  which  we  distin 
guish  from  all  others  as  the  Scriptures,  or  the 
Bible,  the  definitions  previously  laid  down,  we  may 
understand  by  the  term  Biblical  Literature,  in  its 
subjective  sense,  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  as  a 
book,  or  of  the  writings  which  compose  it,  as  books, 


§  9.  What  is  the  true  distinction  (in  English  usage)  between 
biblical "  and  "  scriptural "  ? 
§  10.  What  is  Biblical  literature  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  9 

not  merely  of  their  substance  or  contents,  but  of 
their  form,  text,  language,  structure,  style  and 
history. 

§  11.  Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  Sacred  Lit 
erature,  we  may  conveniently  distinguish  a  wider 
and  a  narrower  application  of  the  term  ;  the  former 
comprehending  Interpretation,  not  only  as  a  part, 
but  as  the  most  important  part  of  Biblical  Litera 
ture,  to  which  its  other  elements  are  merely  aux 
iliary. 

§  12.  But  Interpretation  is  the  business  of  a  life 
time,  which,  so  far  from  being  finished  in  a  course 
of  academical  instruction,  can  only  be  prepared  for 
and  begun.  And  as  this  preparation  and  begin 
ning  are  not  confined  to  any  one  department,  but 
diffused,  at  least  in  theory,  through  all,  we  need  a 
more  specific  definition  of  the  study  upon  which  we 
are  now  entering. 

§  13.  Biblical  Literature,  then,  in  the  restricted 
sense,  excludes  Interpretation  proper,  not  as  being 
either  unimportant  or  irrelevant,  but,  on  the  con 
trary,  as  the  all-important  end  to  which  it  is  itself 
a  necessary  means.  In  other  words,  it  compre- 

§  11.  What  is  its  widest  application? 
§  12.  Why  must  interpretation  be  excluded? 
§  13.  What  is  the  more  restricted  sense  of  Biblical  Literature? 
1* 


10  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEKATUKE. 

liends  those  studies  which  may  be  regarded  as  aux 
iliary  to  the  Exegesis,  or  the  actual  Interpretation  of 
the  Word  of  God. 

§  14.  Biblical  Literature,  thus  defined,  may  be 
correctly  represented  both  as  an  ancient  and  a 
modern  science.  In  its  essential  elements  and 
parts,  it  is  coeval  with  Interpretation,  properly  so 
called.  Ever  since  men  have  attempted  to  ex 
pound  the  Scriptures,  they  have  unavoidably  made 
some  use  of  these  auxiliary  studies  ;  but  in  ancient 
times  without  reducing  them  to  system,  as  a  science 
or  distinct  branch  of  sacred  learning.  Important 
contributions,  both  of  material  and  principle,  are 
due  to  such  men  as  Jerome  and  Augustin  in  the 
ancient  church  ;  to  Junilius  and  Cassiodorus,  at  a 
somewhat  later  date  ;  to  Alcuin  and  Photius  in  the 
middle  ages.  But,  as  a  methodized  and  systematic 
science,  it  is  scarcely  older  than  the  Reformation, 
and  has  been  developed  chiefly  since  that  great 
event,  especially  among  the  Germans,  where  it  has 
become  a  mighty  engine  for  the  propagation  of 
sceptical  theology,  which  is  a  reason  not  for  neg 
lecting  it,  but  rather  for  its  more  assiduous  culti- 


§  14.  How  old  is  this  science  ?  In  what  sense  is  it  ancient?  In 
what  sense  is  it  modern  ?  When  and  where  has  it  chiefly  flour 
ished  ?  How  has  it  been  abused  ?  How  is  the  abuse  to  be  cor 
rected  ? 


NEW  TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  11 

vation,  as  the  only  antidote  to  such  perversion,  and 
the  best  security  for  sound  interpretation. 

§  15.  Another  reason  for  attending  to  these 
studies  here  is  that  more  than  any  other  they  en 
sure  attention  to  the  "Word  of  God  hereafter  by 
making  it  now  a  subject  of  investigation  as  a 
whole,  and  in  its  principal  divisions,  with  their 
mutual  relations,  and  the  most  efficient  methods  of 
minute  and  thorough  exposition,  to  be  carried  out  in 
future  life,  not  as  a  literary  pastime,  or  a  merely 
intellectual  employment,  but  as  the  great  work  of 
the  ministry,  by  which  the  staple  of  its  pastoral  in 
structions  must  be  chiefly  furnished.  This  prospec 
tive  influence  on  future  labor  is  not  so  effectually 
exerted  by  the  minute  interpretation  of  small  por 
tions  of  the  Word — however  valuable  in  itself,  and 
in  its  bearing  upon  other  ends — as  by  a  more  discur 
sive  and  apparently  more  superficial  view  of  those 
preliminary  and  auxiliary  studies,  which  are  com 
prehended  in  the  conventional  and  somewhat  vague 
term,  Biblical  Literature. 

§  16.  The  intimate  relation  thus  existing  between 
these  auxiliary  studies  and  the  great  work  of  interpre- 

§  15.  Why  should  it  form  a  part  of  theological  instruction?  In 
•what  respect  is  it  more  useful  than  actual  interpretation  ? 

§  16.  What  was  the  earliest  form  given  to  this  science?    What 


12  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

tation  led  to  the  early  adoption  of  the  Isagogic  form 
and  method,  which  regards  them  as  directly  intro 
ductory  or  preliminary  (elo-aycoyrj  from  elcrdyw,  in- 
troducd)  to  actual  exegesis  or  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures.  Thus  the  learned  Roman  Catholic, 
Pagninus,  who  died  before  the  middle  of  the  six 
teenth  century,  wrote  two  works,  under  the  Greek 
title  Isagoge  (ad  sacras  literas^  and  ad  mysticos 
sacrcB  scriptures  sensus).  The  same  title  was  adopted 
in  the  next  century  by  the  great  French  Protestant 
divine  Andrew  Rivet.  (Isagoge  ad  Scripturam 
Sacram).  Carpzovius  and  others  used  the  corre 
sponding  Latin  title  Introductw,  which  has  since  be 
come  the  current  one,  not  only  in  Latin  but  in  Eng 
lish  (Introduction)  and  German  (Einleitung). 

§  IT.  The  idea  of  an  Introduction,  being  rela 
tive,  varied  in  extent,  according  to  the  judgment  or 
convenience  of  the  writer.  One  of  the  most  com 
prehensive  applications  of  the  title  is  in  Thomas 
Hartwell  Home's  well-known  work  in  four  vol 
umes,  which  embraces  all  that  can  be  reckoned 
introductory  or  even  auxiliary  to  interpretation, 
not  excepting  the  evidences  of  revealed  religion, 

was  it  called  in  Greek,  and  by  whom  ?  What  in  Latin?  English  ? 
German  ? 

§  17.  How  much  is  included  in  the  term  introduction?     Which 
part  do  the  Germans  commonly  exclude? 


NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE.  13 

nor  biblical  antiquities,  geography  included,  which, 
though  certainly  belonging  to  Biblical  Literature 
in  the  widest  sense,  are  commonly  omitted  by  the 
Germans  in  their  technical  use  and  definition  of  the 
term  Einleitung. 

§  18.  The  usual  practice  has  been  to  divide 
Introduction  into  two  parts  :  General  and  Special ; 
the  former  including  what  relates  to  the  whole 
Bible  or  to  one  of  its  great  parts,  considered  as  a 
whole ;  the  other  what  can  be  conveniently  con 
sidered  only  in  connection  with  the  several  books. 

§  19.  The  order  of  these  two  parts  has  not  al 
ways  been  the  same,  though  commonly  the  one  first 
stated.  Some  writers  of  celebrity,  however,  have 
begun  with  Special  Introduction,  for  the  sake  of  a 
more  chronological  arrangement,  by  beginning  with 
the  history  of  the  several  books  before  reciting  that 
of  their  collection  into  one  book. 

§  20.  This  has  led  in  later  times  to  another 
view  of  the  whole  subject  and  a  corresponding  dif 
ference  in  arrangement  and  the  mode  of  treatment, 
not  as  introductory  to  any  thing,  but  as  independent 

§  18.  What  has  been  the  usual  division  of  Biblical  Introduction? 
§  19.  In  what  two  ways  have  these  parts  been  arranged  ? 
§  20.  What  is  the  historical  theory  and  method  ?    Who  intro 
duced  the  title  "  Critical  History  "  ? 


14:  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEEATTJEE. 

and  complete  in  itself;  or  rather  as  a  branch  of  his 
tory,  literary  or  ecclesiastical ;  a  theory  long  ago 
suggested,  although  not  carried  out,  by  Richard 
Simon,  a  learned  Roman  Catholic,  near  the  close  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  in  his  Histoires  Critiques, 
or  Critical  Histories  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa 
ment,  the  Versions,  Commentators,  &c. 

§  21.  As  this  difference  affects  only  the  arrange 
ment  and  the  nomenclature  of  the  subject,  leaving 
its  substance  unchanged,  it  is  purely  a  question 
of  convenience,  or  at  most  of  literary  taste,  which 
is  likely  to  be  variously  answered  according  to 
the  predilection  of  the  writer  or  the  teacher  for  his 
torical  or  exegetioal  studies.  There  is  certainly  no 
ground  for  the  extravagant  and  vehement  denun 
ciation  of  the  older  (isagogical)  method,  by  some  re 
cent  German  writers,  as  unphilosophical  and  obso 
lete.*  To  those  who  estimate  such  studies  by 
their  bearing  on  Interpretation,  it  will  always  seem 
more  natural  to  treat  them  as  a  branch  of  it,  or 
rather  as  an  introduction  to  it ;  while  to  others  or 
the  same,  it  will  be  recommended  by  its  obvious 
convenience  in  descending  from  generals  to  particu- 

*  Reuss— Guericke  (2d.  ed.) 

§  21.  What  is  the  mutual  relation  of  these  methods?  What 
false  view  has  been  taken  by  some  recent  -writers  ?  What  are  the 
advantages  of  the  old  Isagogical  method  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  15 

lars,  and  looking  at  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  before  ex 
amining  its  parts,  at  least  in  the  minute  details. 

22.  This  subject,  even  in  its  most  curtailed 
dimensions,  is  too  vast  and  various  to  be  subjected 
to  a  single  process  of  investigation  or  compressed 
into  a  single  course  of  study  and  instruction.  Of 
the  different  divisions  which  have  been,  propos 
ed  or  acted  on,  the  most  satisfactory  in  theory 
and  practice  is  the  one  founded  on  the  immemorial 
and  universally  familiar  distinction  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament. 

§  23.  This  word,  both  in  English  and  in  Latin 
(testamentum))  means  a  last  will,  or  final  disposi 
tion  of  one's  property,  to  take  effect  after  the  death 
of  the  testator.*  It  is  used  in  the  Latin  Yulgate 
to  translate  the  Greek  word  Sia&rj/cTj,  not  only 
when  it  means  a  testamentary  arrangement  (as  in 
Heb.  0,  16.  17),  but  also  when  it  means  a  dis- 

*  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  while  "  testament "  has  acquired 
this  secondary  meaning,  which  it  would  now  be  folly  to  disturb,  its 
kindred  terms,  testamentary,  testator,  and  intestate,  are  never  used 
in  any  but  their  primary  and  proper  application. 

§  22.  Why  must  the  subject  of  Biblical  Literature  be  divided  ? 
What  is  the  most  satisfactory  division  ? 

§  23.  What  is  the  origin  of  "Testament,"  as  thus  applied? 
What  is  the  origin  of  the  phrase  "  Old  Testament "  ?  When  was 
the  phrase  New  Testament  applied  ? 


16  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEKATUKE. 

pensation  or  divine  economy  (as  in  Gal.  4,  24. 
Heb.  9,  15),  and  when  it  means  a  mutual  arrange 
ment  or  a  covenant  (as  in  Horn.  11,  27  and  pas 
sim).  From  the  sense  of  dispensation  or  econo 
my  the  transition  was  an  easy  one  to  that  of  its 
appropriate  and  peculiar  revelation,  in  which  sense 
Paul  employs  the  phrase  TraXaia  Sia&iJK7j  (2  Cor. 
3,  14)  in  immediate  connection  with  the  act  of 
reading  (avayvcoa-erj,)  and  with  obvious  reference 
to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  In  exact  analogy 
to  this  apostolical  expression,  the  correlative  phrase, 
Kaivri  SiaSijtcrj,  may  be  used  to  designate  the  Greek 
Scriptures,  or  the  Christian  revelation,  though  ap 
plied  in  the  New  Testament  itself  only  to  the  new 
covenant  or  dispensation,  of  which  these  books  are 
the  written  charter  or  organic  law.  (See  Matt.  26, 
28.  2  Cor.  3,  6.  Heb.  8,  8.  0,  15.  12,  24.)  This 
analogous  use  of  /cawr)  Sia&tffcij  is  at  least  as  old 
as  Origen,  and  that  of  Novum  Testamentwn  may 
be  traced  still  further  back,  to  Tertullian,  and  per 
haps  to  the  oldest  Latin  version  in  which  this 
phrase  may  have  coexisted  with  the  kindred  one 
of  Novum  Instrumentwn. 

§  24.  The  distinction  here  proposed  is  not  con- 


§  24.  Why  may  the   two  Testaments  be   separately   treated 
What  is  the  difference  in  age ?    In  language?    In  subject? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  17 

fl) 

ventional  or  arbitrary,  but  arises  from  the  mutual 
relation  of  the  parts,  which,  although  constituting 
one  revelation,  and  inseparable  from  each  other, 
and  reciprocally  necessary  in  the  process  of  inter 
pretation,  are  still  formally  so  far  unlike  as  to  ad 
mit  and  even  to  require  somewhat  different  exeget- 
ical  appliances  and  processes.  Such  are  found  nec 
essary  in  the  writings  of  two  different  ages,  even 
where  the  language  is  essentially  the  same,  as  in 
the  case  of  Homer  and  Demosthenes,  Chaucer  and 
Shakspeare.  How  much  more  when  the  languages 
are  not  only  different,  but  of  different  stocks,  as  in 
the  case  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  !  The  same  neces 
sity  arises  in  some  measure  from  the  difference  of 
subject  and  design  between  a  preparatory  and  com 
pleted  revelation,  a  ceremonial  and  a  spiritual  dis 
pensation.  This  division  has  accordingly  been  long 
adopted  by  the  best  German  writers  on  the  subject. 

§  25.  The  only  plausible  objection  to  the  sepa 
ration  here  suggested  is  the  one  arising  from  the 
danger  of  interpreting  the  Old  and  New  Testa 
ments  without  regard  to  one  another ;  and  this  is 
rather  theoretical  than  practical,  as  all  experience 
shows  how  utterly  impossible  that  process  is,  where 

§  25.  What  objection  is  there  to  this  method  ?    How  may  it  be 
answered  ? 


18  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

both  parts  are  received  as  equally  inspired.  Least 
of  all  is  such  an  error  to  be  apprehended  either  on 
the  part  of  teachers  or  of  learners,  in  our  public  in 
stitutions,  where  the  study  of  both  testaments  is 
constantly  and  simultaneously  pursued,  as  parts  of 
the  same  uniform  and  homogeneous  system.  Where 
either  portion  of  the  Word  is  neglected  for  the  sake 
of  the  other,  the  abuse  must  spring  from  personal 
obliquity  of  judgment  rather  than  from  any  formal 
distribution  or  arrangement. 

§  26.  If  the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures  were 
preceded  by  no  early  and  more  superficial  knowl 
edge  of  them  ;  if  the  Bible  were  as  unknown  to  the 
student  of  theology  as  the  Yedas,  or  even  as  the 
Koran ;  the  only  reasonable  method  would  be  to  dis 
pose  of  the  Old  Testament  before  proceeding  to  the 
JSTew.  But  as  we  all  know  something  of  the  Scrip 
tures  from  our  childhood,  and  the  object  of  profes 
sional  interpretation  is  not  so  much  to  discover  what 
is  new,  as  to  perfect  and  reduce  to  system  what  is 
partially  known  already,  there  is  neither  theoreti 
cal  absurdity  nor  practical  inconvenience  in  pursu 
ing  the  two  studies  at  the  same  time  in  parallel 
courses.  And  as  most  of  us  are  first  and  best  ac- 

§  26.  Why  may  the  two  courses  be  pursued  at  once  ?     Why  may 
we  begin  with  the  New  Testament  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  19 

quainted  with  the  later  revelation,  there  is  nothing 
to  forbid,  if  nothing  to  require  or  recommend,  our 
taking  the  last  first,  and  immediately  proceeding 
to  the  proper  subject  of  this  course,  to  wit :  New 
Testament  Literature  or  Introduction. 

§  27.  Applying  the  previous  definitions  and  dis 
tinctions  to  this  part  of  Scripture,  we  may  under 
stand  New  Testament  Literature  as  denoting  the 
knowledge  of  the  New  Testament,  as  a  book,  or  of 
the  writings  which  compose  it,  as  books  ;  not 
merely  the  truth  which  they  contain,  but  their  pe 
culiar  form  and  literary  history. 

§  28.  To  this  as  well  as  to  the  Old  Testament, 
the  same  two  theories  have  been  applied,  with  the 
two  corresponding  modes  of  treatment,  the  Isagog- 
ical  and  the  Historical.  The  former  has  been  com 
monly  adopted  till  within  a  few  years,  Richard 
Simon's  Histoire  Critique  du  Nouveau  Testament 
(1689)  being  rather  an  apparent  than  a  real  excep 
tion,  and  including  only  a  part  of  the  whole 
subject. 

§  29.  The  rise  of  the  sceptical  theology  in  Ger 
many  was  not  without  effect  upon  this  branch  of 

§  27.  What  is  New  Testament  Literature? 

§  28.  What  two  theories  and  plans  have  been  applied  to  it  ? 

§  29.  How  was  it  affected  by  the  sceptical   theology  of  Ger- 


20  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEIiATUBE. 

learning,  and  was  reciprocally  aided  by  it.  On 
the  boundary  between  old  doctrines  and  neology 
stands  John  David  Michaclis,  of  Gottingen,  whose 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  was  originally 
published  in  1750,  carrying  out  the  critical  princi 
ples  of  Eichard  Simon,  and  doing  good  service  in 
relation  to  the  text  and  ancient  versions.  To  the 
fourth  edition  of  this  work  were  added  valuable 
notes  by  Herbert  Marsh,  of  Cambridge,  afterwards 
Bishop  of  Peterboro',  translated  into  German  by 
the  younger  Rosenmiiller  (1795).  Between  the  first 
and  fourth  editions,  Semler  had  begun  to  treat  the 
subject  rationalistically  in  his  "  Apparatus  ad  liber- 
tatem  Novi  Testament!  Interpretationem  "  (1767), 
and  his  treatise  on  the  free  investigation  of  the 
Canon  (1771 — 1775).  The  process  thus  begun  was 
carried  further  by  Eichhorn,  in  his  Introduction, 
published  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  present 
century  (1804 — 1827),  and  reached  its  height  in 
that  of  DeWette,  the  first  edition  of  which  ap 
peared  in.  1826,  and  the  fifth  in  1848.  In  the 
mean  time  a  reaction  had  begun,  promoted  by  the 
learned  and  ingenious  Roman  Catholic,  John  Leon 
ard  Hug,  whose  Introduction  appeared  first  in 
1808  (fourth  edition,  1847). 

many  ?  What  were  the  principal  New  Testament  Introductions  of 
this  school?  Who  may  be  considered  as  beginning  the  reaction  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATUEE.  21 

§  30.  Among  those  who  contributed  to  this  reac 
tion  was  II.  F.  Guericke,  an  orthodox  and  pious  Lu 
theran  of  Halle,  in  his  Contributions  to  JN  ew  Testa 
ment  Introduction,  occasioned  by  DeWette's  publica 
tions  (1828),  his  Further  Contributions  (1831),  and 
finally,  his  formal  Introduction  (1843),  which  may 
be  regarded  as  a  summary  of  all  that  went  before, 
designed  expressly  to  resist  the  infidel  tendency  of 
the  age,  and  to  maintain  the  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  This  work  was  con 
structed  on  the  old  isagogical  principle  ;  but  in  its 
latest  and  best  form,  divided  into  General  and  Spe 
cial  Introduction,  presenting  first  what  relates  to 
the  JSTew  Testament  collectively,  and  then  what  is 
peculiar  to  the  several  books. 

§  31.  After  this  work  was  printed,  but  before  its 
publication,  another  of  the  same  general  character 
was  brought  out  by  a  young  Professor  (Reuss)  of 
Strasburg,  in  which  the  isagogical  method  was  en 
tirely  discarded,  and  the  subject  treated,  not  as  in 
troductory  to  exegesis,  but  as  a  branch  of  history, 


§  30.  Who  continued  it  ?  "What  was  the  character  and  plan  of 
Guerickc's  first  edition  ? 

§  31.  What  change  was  introduced  by  Reuss?  What  effect  had 
this  on  Guericke  ?  To  what  extreme  did  he  go  in  his  last  edition  ? 
What  is  the  true  view  of  these  rival  methods?  Of  what  inconsis 
tency  was  Guericke  guilty  ?  (That  of  retaining  the  word  Isagogik.) 


22  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE. 

and  therefore  chronologically  ordered,  under  six  suc 
cessive  topics,  without  any  division  into  General 
and  SpecJ&l.  This  arrangement,  disapproved  by 
Guericke  in  the  preface  to  his  first  edition,  was 
adopted  in  the  second  (1853),  after  having  been 
reissued  by  its  author  in  a  fuller  and  completer 
form.  Not  satisfied  with  this  change,  Guericke 
denounces  all  adherence  to  the  old  isagogical 
method  as  behind  the  age  and  utterly  unscientific  ; 
whereas,  both  arrangements,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  are  views  of  the  same  object  from  two  differ 
ent  points  of  observation,  and  the  old  one  has  ad 
vantages  peculiar  to  itself. 

§  32.  As  this  historical  arrangement,  although 
not  more  scientific  than  the  other,  and  practically 
less  convenient  for  our  purpose,  is  ingenious  in  it 
self,  and  likely  to  remain  in  vogue  until  another  is 
discovered,  it  may  not  be  without  use  to  introduce 
the  scheme,  as  first  proposed  by  Reuss,  and  slightly 
modified  by  Guericke.  The  whole  subject  is  re 
duced  to  six  consecutive  heads,  without  subdivision, 
and  may  be  expressed  as  follows  : 

1.  The  history  of  the  preparation  for  the  New 
Testament  revelation  [or  its  antecedents]. 

§  32.  Why  is  it  well  to  be  acquainted  with  the  historical  ar 
rangement  ?  What  are  the  six  topics  of  Guericke  and  Reuss  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  23 

2.  The  history  of  its  origin  [viz.,  that  of  the 
several  books,  seriatim]. 

3.  The  history  of  their  collection  [or  of  the  New 
Testament  Canon], 

4.  The  history  of  its  preservation   [or  of  the 
New  Testament  Text]. 

5.  The  history  of  its  circulation  or  diffusion  [by 
the  aid  of  versions]. 

G.  The  history  of  its  usage  or  application  *  [in 
the  way  of  exegesis  or  interpretation]. 

§  33.  Having  thus  exhibited  the  new  historical 
arrangement  of  the  subject,  for  the  purpose  of  com 
parison  and  reference,  we  now  return  to  the  more 
familiar  and  convenient  isagogical  method,  which 
considers  the  whole  subject,  not  as  a  chapter  of 
literary  history,  but  as  a  preparation  for  the  work 
of  actual  interpretation,  and  divides  it  into  two 
great  parts,  called  General  and  Special  Introduc 
tion  •  the  former,  as  we  have  already  seen,  embrac 
ing  what  relates  to  the  JSTew  Testament  or  all  its 
books,  collectively  ;  the  latter  what  belongs  to  the 
books  singly,  and  can  be  satisfactorily  treated,  only 
by  examining  them  in  detail,  and  one  by  one. 

*  So  Reuss  (not  Guericke). 

§  33.  What  method  will  be  used  in  this  course  ?  What  is  the 
primary  division  of  the  subject?  Why  is  the  extent  of  general  In 
troduction  variable  ? 


24:  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEEATUEE. 

Tlie  first  of  these  divisions,  being  rather  a  conven 
tional  or  arbitrary  than  a  scientific  or  a  necessary 
one,  may  be  expanded  or  contracted  at  our  own 
discretion. 

§  34:.  But  whatever  be  the  topics  comprehended 
under  General  Introduction,  it  is  highly  important 
to  arrange  them,  not  at  random,  or  by  any  arbi 
trary  method,  such  as  the  alphabetical,  but  on 
some  rational  intelligible  principle,  by  which  is  not 
meant  one  that  is  purely  philosophical  or  scientific, 
but  simply  one  for  which  a  reason  can  be  given,  as 
opposed  to  one  that  is  merely  accidental  or  capri 
cious.  The  best  mode  of  obtaining  such  a  method 
in  the  present  case  is  by  adhering  to  the  isagogic 
principle,  considering  interpretation  as  the  end  to  be 
attained,  and  then  inquiring  what  preliminary  ques 
tions  must  be  answered,  or  may  be  answered  with 
advantage,  before  entering  on  the  ultimate  and 
main  work  of  exegesis  or  actual  interpretation. 

§  35.  Taking  the  widest  view  of  General  In 
troduction  that  has  been  proposed  by  any  writer, 
and  supposing  the  interpreter  to  be  incited,  not  by 

§  34.  How  should  its  topics  be  arranged  ?  What  is  meant  by  a 
rational  method?  To  what  is  it  opposed?  How  may  such  a 
method  be  obtained? 

§  35.  What  is  to  be  assumed  in  the  application  of  this  princi 
ple?  What  then  is  the  first  preliminary  question?  What  other 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE.  25 

mere  literary  curiosity,  or  vague  desire  of  knowl 
edge  for  its  own  sake,  but  by  religious  motives,  and 
especially  an  earnest  wish  to  know  the  will  of  God, 
the  first  preliminary  question  which  might  be  ex 
pected  to  present  itself  is  this :  "What  reason  is 
there  to  believe  a  revelation  possible  or  necessary — 
or,  if  this  be  'granted,  what  reason  is  there  to  be 
lieve  this  book  to  be  the  Word  of  God — or  this 
New  Testament  to  bo  a  part  of  such  a  revelation  ? 
Supposing  this  to  be  determined,  the  next  questions 
would  be :  What  are  the  writings  which  compose 
this  volume  ?  What  detailed  compositions  have  a 
right  to  a  place  in  this  collection  ?  These  two 
questions  may  appear  to  involve  each  other ;  but 
the  fact  is  certain  that  even  where  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  as  a  whole,  is  granted,  there  may  be  a 
doubt  as  to  the  parts  of  which  it  is  composed. 

§  36.  A  third  preliminary  question,  in  the  case 
supposed,  is,  whether  this  book,  or  these  writings 
which  compose  it,  are  precisely  as  they  were  at 
first,  and  exhibit  the  ipsissima  verb  a  of  the  sacred 


question  does  it  raise  ?  "What  is  the  next  question  ?  What  other 
question  does  it  raise  ?  Why  do  these  questions  not  involve  each 
other  ? 

§  36.  What  is  a  third  preliminary  question  ?     What  other  ques 
tion  does  it  raise  ?     What  do  these  questions  presuppose  ?    What 
is  the  previous  question  thus  suggested  ? 
o 


26  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE. 

writers  ;  or  if  not,  whether  they  can  be  restored  to 
their  original  condition.  The  solution,  and  even 
the  investigation,  of  this  question,  presupposes  some 
acquaintance  with  the  language  in  which  the  book 
is  written.  It  may,  therefore,  be  presented  as  a  pre 
vious  or  intermediate  question,  What  that  lan 
guage  is — its  origin — its  history — its  character — the 
means  by  which  it  may  be  mastered — and  the 
sources  from  which  illustrations  may  be  drawn  ? 

§  37.  Supposing  this  essential  knowledge  to  have 
been  acquired,  the  question  in  relation  to  the  text 
may  be  successfully  pursued.  But  even  when  it 
has  been  answered,  it  is  found  that  the  book,  al 
though  verbally  intelligible,  is  obscured  by  per 
petual  allusions  to  remote  times  and  places,  to 
peculiar  climates,  soils,  and  products,  to  a  state  of 
society  unlike  our  own,  to  personal  habits,  to  do 
mestic,  social,  civil,  and  religious  institutions,  of  a 
kind  with  which  the  reader  has  no  personal  ac 
quaintance,  and  of  which  he  must  know  something, 
in  a  general  way  at  least,  before  he  can  attempt 
interpretation  in  detail,  with  any  prospect  of  suc 
cess.  We  may  now  suppose  him  to  have  gained 
this  knowledge  ;  but  before  he  enters  on  the  work 
of  exegesis  with  entire  satisfaction,  he  will  natu 
rally  ask  another  question,  really  including  two. 

§  37.  What  is  the  fourth  preliminary  question  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT    LITERATURE.  27 

§  38.  This  is  the  question :  How — upon  what 
principles,  the  work  is  to  be  carried  on  ?  How  far 
must  the  interpretation  of  this  book  as  an  inspired 
one,  be  different  from  that  of  a  mere  human  compo 
sition  ?  And  a  man  of  due  humility  and  self-dis 
trust  would  scarcely  fail  to  add  the  question,  What 
have  others  done  before  me  in  the  effort  to  explain 
this  book  to  others,  or  to  understand  it  for  them 
selves  ?  What  rules  have  they  adopted  or  laid 
down  ?  and  what  are  the  results  ?  What  means  of 
illustration,  and  facilities  for  study,  have  they  left 
to  their  successors  ?  And  how  may  we  avail  our 
selves  of  their  assistance  to  the  most  advantage  ? 
These  concluding  questions  being  satisfactorily  an 
swered,  the  way  to  a  correct  interpretation  of  this 
part  of  Scripture  is  completely  open,  and  requires 
only  to  be  diligently  walked  in. 

§  39.  This  may  seem  to  place  the  business  of 
interpretation  at  too  great  a  distance,  and  to  hinder 
the  approach  to  it  by  too  many  obstructions.  But 
this  discouraging  impression  may  be  rectified  by 
recollecting  that  it  is  not  the  minute  detail,  in- 

§  38.  What  is  the  fifth  preliminary  question  ?  What  is  the 
sixth  ? 

§  39.  What  objection  may  be  made  to  the  foregoing  statement  ? 
How  may  it  be  answered  ?  What  use  may  be  now  made  of  these 
questions  ? 


28  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

eluded  under  these  successive  topics,  that  is  abso 
lutely  necessary  as  an  introduction  to  the  actual 
processes  of  exegesis,  but  only  a  correct  acquain 
tance  with  the  main  points  upon  which  the  rest  de 
pend.  When  these  are  mastered,  even  in  their  prin 
ciples  or  outlines,  the  very  process  of  interpretation 
will  throw  light  upon  the  others,  and  receive  light 
from  them  by  a  mutual  reflection.  But  interpreta 
tion  cannot  even  be  begun,  in  an  intelligent  and 
profitable  manner,  without  a  previous  solution, 
however  general  and  superficial,  of  the  questions 
which  have  been  successively  propounded,  and  the 
answers  to  which  comprehend  the  whole  of  General 
Introduction  in  its  widest  sense.  As  an  aid  to  the 
memory,  let  us  briefly  recapitulate  the  questions, 
and  observe  their  correspondence  with  the  parts  of 
Introduction. 

§  40.  To  the  first  question — (what  reason  have  we 
to  regard  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  ?) — the  answer 
is  afforded  by  that  part  of  Introduction,  in  the 
widest  application  of  the  term,  which  the  Germans 
call  Apologetic ,  and  which  we,  for  want  of  any 
technical  expression,  call  the  Evidences  of  Revealed 

§  40.  How  is  the  first  question  to  be  answered?  How  is  the 
second  to  be  answered?  How  is  the  third  to  be  answered?  How 
is  the  fourth  to  be  answered?  What  is  the  technical  use  of  the 
torms  "  text "  and  "  criticism  "  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT    LITEKATUKE.  29 

Religion.  To  the  second  question — (what  particu 
lar  writings  are  entitled  to  a  place  in  this  inspired 
collection  ?) — the  answer  includes  all  that  relates  to 
what  is  technically  called  the  Canon  of  [Scripture 
or  of]  the  New  Testament.  To  the  third  question 
— (what  is  the  original  language,  its  affinities,  its 
history,  its  character,  the  means  of  its  elucidation  ?) 
—the  answer  is  afforded  by  that  part  of  Introduction 
called  New  Testament  [or  Biblical]  Philology.  To 
the  fourth  question — (how  may  the  exact  words  of 
the  sacred  writers  be  determined  ?  and  how  far  has 
this  been  done  already  ?) — the  answer  is  afforded  by 
New  Testament  [or  Biblical]  Criticism,  i.  e.  of  the 
text,  using  both  words  in  their  technical  and  narrow 
sense.  - 

§  41.  .The  fifth  question — (what  were  the  pecu 
liar  circumstances  of  the  people  mentioned  in  the 
Bible,  as  to  country,  climate,  habits,  institutions, 
some  knowledge  of  which  is  necessary  to  a  correct 
determination  of  its  meaning?) — opens  the  whole 
subject  of  Antiquities  or  Archceology,  including  the 
Geography  of  Scripture.  The  answer  to  the  sixth 
question — (what  are  the  principles  and  laws  of 


§  41.  How  is  the  fifth  question  to  be  answered  ?  How  is  the 
sixth  question  to  be  answered  ?  How  is  the  seventh  question  to  be 
answered  ?  Why  may  the  sixth  and  seventh  be  transposed  ? 


30  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATTJRE. 

biblical  interpretation  ?) — coiTesponds  to  what  is 
technically  known  as  ffermencutics,  differing  from 
Exegesis,  as  the  science  from  the  art,  or  theory 
from  practice.  But  as  this  is  an  inductive  science, 
resting  more  upon  experience  and  common  sense 
than  on  any  abstract  speculations  a  priori,  it  is  not 
to  be  severed  from  the  seventh  and  last  question — 
(what  has  been  already  done  in  this  department  ?) 
— corresponding  to  the  History  of  Interpretation. 
Indeed,  it  may  be  found  most  convenient  in  prac 
tice,  to  give  this  the  preference  in  order  of  consid 
eration,  so  as  to  secure  the  advantage  of  historical 
induction  in  determining  our  rules  and  principles 
of  exegesis. 

§  42.  Such  is  a  brief  view  of  the  topics  compre 
hended  in  the  widest  application  of  the  technical 
term  Introduction,  and  actually  treated  in  some 
works  upon  the  subject,  as  for  instance  that  of 
Home  already  mentioned  (§  17).  But  in  order  to 
reduce  the  field  to  manageable  compass  [as  well 
as  to  accommodate  our  own  arrangements],  it  will 
be  necessary  to  eliminate  several  of  these  topics,  al 
though,  not  precisely  on  the  same  grounds.  One  of 

§  42.  "Where  is  this  scheme  carried  out  in  its  full  extent?  Why 
must  it  be  reduced  to  narrower  limits?  How  may  this  be  effected? 
Why  may  the  evidences  be  omitted  ?  Why  may  Antiquities  and 
Geography  be  omitted  ?  Why  may  Hermcneutics  be  omitted? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  31 

these,  the  first  in  our  enumeration,  though  a  funda 
mental  and  preliminary  question,  belongs  rather  to 
Theology  than  to  Introduction,  and  is  either  pre 
supposed  or  included  in  that  study.  Another, 
holding  ihe  fifth  place,  may  be  excluded  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  rather  a  collateral  auxiliary  than 
an  introductory  preliminary  study.  This,  with  its 
vast  extent  and  growing  interest,  requires  it  to  be 
separately  treated  [as  I  hope  it  will  be  in  our 
course  of  study].  The  only  other  topic  which  can 
be  omitted  is  that  of  Hermeneutics,  on  the  ground 
that  it  cannot  well  be  separately  handled  in  connec 
tion  with  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Bible,  but 
must  be  disposed  of  once  for  all,  without  regard  to 
this  conventional  distinction. 

§  43.  The  elimination  of  these  topics  leaves  us 
four,  to  constitute  the  first  part  of  our  present 
course,  distinguished  from  the  last  part  by  the  name 
of  General  Introduction.  I.  The  New  Testament 
Canon  (or  the  books  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  col 
lection).  II.  The  New  Testament  Philology  (or  all 
that  relates  to  the  Original  -Language).  III.  The 
New  Testament  Text  and  Textual  Criticism  (by 
which  we  determine  the  ipsissima  vcrba  of  the 

§  43.  Hew  many  topics  still  remain?  What  is  the  first?  What 
is  the  second  ?  What  is  the  third  ?  What  is  the  fourth  ?  What 
part  of  it  belongs  to  Special  Introduction  ? 


32  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

sacred  writers).  IY.  The  Exegetical  History  of  the 
New  Testament  (including  that  of  Versions,  ancient 
and  modern,  and  that  of  schools  and  systems  of 
interpretation,  but  excluding  that  of  individual 
books  and  writers,  which  belongs  to  Special  Intro 
duction^) 

§  44.  The  transition  or  connecting  link  between 
General  and  Special  Introduction  will  be  furnished 
by  a  topic  which  belongs  exclusively  to  neither, 
and  yet  partially  to  both— to  the  second,  as  con 
cerning  the  particular  books — to  the  first,  as  neces 
sarily  preceding  their  minute  examination  one  by 
one.  This  is  the  topic  of  Classification  and  Ar 
rangement,  under  which  we  may  arrange  some 
matters  commonly  connected  with  the  Canon,  such 
as  the  circumstances  out  of  which  the  Christian 
Revelation  (or  New  Testament)  arose,  and  the  traces 
of  an  actual  collection  of  the  books  into  a  volume ; 
the  canonical  history  of  each  book,  as  detailed  proof 
of  its  canonicity,  belonging  necessarily  to  Special 
Introduction. 

§  45.  The  first  division,  then,  of  GENERAL  IN- 

§  44.  What  is  the  transition  or  connecting  link  with  Special  In 
troduction?  How  far  does  it  belong  to  both  ?  What  may  be  con 
veniently  referred  to  this  intermediate  topic? 

§  45.  What  is  the  first  topic  of  General  Introduction?  What 
are  the  questions  which  it  undertakes  to  answer?  Why  are  these 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  •    33 

TRODUCTION  is  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  or,  according 
to  tlie  distribution  winch  we  have  adopted  (§  22 — 
26),  that  of  the  New  Testament.  By  means  of  the 
arrangement  just  proposed  (§  44)  we  are  enabled  to 
reduce  this  topic  to  a  reasonable  compass,  introduc 
ing  only  what  is  absolutely  necessary  as  a  prelimi 
nary  to  the  others  ;  and  in  answer  to  the  question, 
What  shall  we  interpret  ?  answer,  the  New  Tes 
tament.  But  what  is  the  New  Testament  ?  What 
volume  is  entitled  to  the  name?  The  Book  of 
Mormon,  or  the  Koran,  might  be  lettered  the 
"  New  Testament,"  but  this  would  not  entitle  them 
to  be  so  reckoned  ;  and  even  when  we  have  iden 
tified  the  volume  as  a  whole,  the  question  still  re 
mains  to  be  decided,  What  books  are  entitled  to  a 
place  in  this  collection  ?  Are  the  twenty- seven 
books  which  now  compose  it  those  which  were  ac 
knowledged  by  the  church  from  the  beginning — 
neither  more  nor  less  ?  The  question  with  which 
we  are  directly  here  concerned  is  not  whether  these 
books  are  inspired,  but  whether  they  were  so  con 
sidered  by  the  church  from  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
and  thereby  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  Canon  ? 

§  46.  The  Greek  word  (KCLV&V)  may  be  traced  to 

necessary  as  preliminary  questions?  How  is  this  topic  related  to 
that  of  inspiration  ? 

§  46.  What  is  the  etymology  of  canon  and  canonical  ?    What 
2* 


34    *  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEKATUEE. 

one  originally  meaning  a  cane  or  reed — then  any 
straight  rod  suitable  for  measuring  or  for  keeping 
other  things  straight — with  specific  application  to 
the  beam  of  a  balance — or,  as  some  say,  to  its  per 
pendicular  support — but  certainly  denoting,  as  a 
secondary  meaning,  any  rule  or  standard,  physical 
or  moral.  It  is  then  applied,  by  way  of  emi 
nence,  to  the  Rule  of  Faith  and  to  the  Scriptures, 
or  inspired  Word  of  God,  as  constituting  that  rule.* 
The  sense  of  list  or  catalogue  attached  by  some  to 
this  word,  is  entirely  derivative  and  later  in  its 
origin.  The  cognate  adjective  to  canon  is  canonical, 
belonging  to  the  Canon,  or  the  Rule  of  Faith.  Its 
correlatives  and  opposites,  apocrypha,  apocryphal, 
derived  from  aTroKpvTrrco,  to  hide  from  or  to  hide 
away,  and  variously  used  by  ancient  writers  to  de 
note  what  is  secret  or  mysterious,  anonymous  or  of 
uncertain  origin,  .spurious  or  counterfeit,  untrue  or 
fabulous,  heretical  or  doctrinally  false,  but  as  a 
technical  and  ecclesiastical  expression  meaning  sim- 

*  "By  the  Straight  we  judge  both  itself  and  the  crooked,  for 
the  rule  is  singly  the  test  of  both  (Kpir^s  a^bo'ii'  6  KO.V&V)"  Aris 
totle  de  Anim&,  c.  5,  §  16,  ed.  Trendelenburg,  quoted  by  Archer 
Butler,  vol.  ii.  p.  385  (cd.  W.  H.  Thompson). 


is  that  of  apocrypha  ?  What  are  the  various  senses  of  apocryphal  ? 
What  is  its  technical  and  strict  sense  ?  Why  are  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  not  Apocryphal? 


NEW    TESTAMENT    LITERATURE.  35 

ply  and  specifically  something  which  purports  or 
claims  to  be  a  part  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  is  not  so, 
perhaps  with  the  accessory  notion  of  uncertain  ori 
gin,  by  which  the  so-called  Apostolic  Fathers  are 
exempted  from  the  application  of  the  term,  though 
some  of  them  were  anciently  regarded  as  inspired, 
and  their  writings  read  in  public  worship. 

§  47.  The  precise  point  to  be  determined  under 
this  head  is  the  identity  of  the  book  which  we  call 
the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  writings  which  com 
pose  it  now,  with  those  acknowledged,  under  the 
same  names,  from  the  beginning,  as  belonging  to 
the  Canon  or  the  Rule  of  Faith.  There  are  two 
methods  of  conducting  this  inquiry,  which  may  be 
distinguished  as  the  a  priori  and  a  posteriori  pro 
cess.  The  first  consists  of  a  historical  deduction  in 
the  order  of  time,  tracing  the  origin  of  each  book, 
and  of  the  entire  collection,  with  the  proofs  of  their 
continued  existence  to  the  present  time.  This  is  the 
course  adopted  by  those  writers  who  prefer  the 
Historical  arrangement  to  the  Isagogical  (§  21,  22, 
23).  Under  the  latter  plan  which  we  are  now  pur 
suing,  this  deduction  may  be  most  conveniently  pre 
sented  in  its  outlines  at  the  close  of  the  General 

§  47.  What  is  the  precise  point  to  be  settled?  What  are  the 
two  methods  of  proceeding  ?  What  is  the  a  priori  method  ?  Where 
does  it  properly  belong?  What  is  the  a  posteriori  method? 


36  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

Introduction  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  Clas 
sification  and  Arrangement,  and  in  its  details  in  the 
Special  Introduction  to  the  several  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  In  this  place,  and  in  answer  to 
the  preliminary  question  just  propounded,  it  will 
only  be  necessary  to  present  in  brief  the  a  poste 
riori  "argument  for  the  identity  of  our  New  Testa 
ment  with  that  wThich  came  from  the  Apostles,  set 
ting  out  from  undisputed  and  notorious  facts  be 
longing  to  the  present,  and  then  tracing  up  the 
testimony  to  the  very  times  of  the  Apostles. 

§  48.  The  fact  from  which  we  set  out  in  this  a 
posteriori  process  is  the  palpable  and  certain  one, 
that  the  book  now  called  the  New  Testament  is  the 
same  in  every  language,  and  throughout  the  world. 
This  statement  has  no  reference  to  minute  varia 
tions  of  the  text,  which  will  be  afterwards  consid 
ered,  but  to  the  collection  as  a  whole,  and  to  the 
smaller  books  of  which  it  is  composed.  This  uni 
formity  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  it  has  no 
existence  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament,  one  of 
the  points  of  difference  between  most  Protestants 
and  the  Church  of  Rome,  relating  to  the  canon  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  whereas,  although  the 

§  48.  What  is  the  starting  point  in  this  inquiry?  How  is  this 
statement  to  be  understood  ?  Is  it  equally  true  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  37 

New  Testament  apocrypha  are  still  more  numerous, 
not  one  of  them  is  anywhere  regarded  as  belonging 
to  the  Canon,  but  all  critics  and  all  nations  and  all 
churches,  are  agreed  in  acknowledging  the  same 
New  Testament,  composed  of  the  same  twenty- 
seven  books,  neither  more  nor  less. 

^^^^ 

§  49.  The  next  fact,  equally  notorious  and  cer 
tain,  although  more  remote  from  our  immediate 
sphere  of  observation,  is  that  this  identity  or  unifor 
mity  has  constantly  existed  for  a  period  of  more 
than  1400  years  ;  before  as  well  as  since  the  Refor 
mation  ;  through  the  Middle  Ages ;  back  to  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century.  The  evidence  of  this 
fact  is  both  negative  and  positive,  arising  from  the 
absence  of  all  contrary  appearances  throughout,  this 
series  of  ages,  and  confirmed  by  explicit  testimony, 
at  the  date  referred  to,  that  the  same  New  Testa 
ment  which  we  possess,  and  made  up  of  the  same 
books,  was  then  both  in  public  use  and  private  cir 
culation.  This  explicit  testimony  is  afforded  both 
by  individuals  and  by  collective  bodies,  of  great 
eminence,  and  highly  cpalified  to  testify  without 
mistake  or  partiality. 

§  50.  In  order  to  preclude  all  misconception  as 

§  49.  What  is  the  next  fact  ?  What  is  the  twofold  proof  of  it  ? 
What  is  the  negative  proof?  What  is  the  positive  proof? 


38  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

to  tliis  point;  it  is  proper  to  observe  and  bear  in 
mind,  that  we  appeal  to  fathers  and  to  councils, 
not  as  judges,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  does,  but  as 
witnesses  to  matters  of  fact,  of  which  they  were 
personally  cognizant,  as  well  as  ex  qfficio.  The 
weight  of  the  testimony  is  to  be  determined,  as  in 
other  cases,  by  the  character  and  standing  of  the 
witness  as  known  dliwide,  by  his  opportunities  of 
information,  and  his  freedom  from  all  motives  to 
misrepresent.  Measured  by  this  rule,  one  man 
may  deserve  more  credit  than  the  largest  council ; 
but  in  general  the  testimony  of  such  bodies  is  pecu 
liarly  important,  «as  embodying  the  testimony  of 
great  numbers ;  as  preceded  often  by  inquiry  and 
discussion ;  as  expressed,  not  hastily  and  loosely, 
but  with  more  or  less  precision  and  formality; 
and,  lastly,  as  transmitted  to  us,  not  by  vague  tra 
dition,  but  in  solemn,  and  official  acts. 

§  51.  The  fact  already  stated,  that  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury,  was  perfectly  identical  with  that  in  universal 

§  50.  What  is  the  authority  ascribed  in  this  argument  to 
fathers  and  councils?  How  is  their  testimony  to  be  valued? 
What  gives  peculiar  weight  to  that  of  councils? 

§  51.  What  is  the  testimony  of  Rufiiius?  Upon  whose  authori 
ty  docs  it  rest  ?  What  distinction  does  he  make  between  canonical 
and  other  books?  What  does  he  say  of  the  New  Testament  Apoc 
rypha. 


NEW   TESTAMENT    LITERATURE.  39 

use  at  present,  is  attested  by  Itufinus,  an  eminent 
Father  of  the  Latin  Church,  who  enumerates  the 
books  by  classes,  namely,  the  Four  Gospels,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  fourteen  epistles  of  Paul,  two 
of  Peter,  one  of  James,  one  of  Jude,  three  of 
John,  and  the  Eevelation  of  the  same  Apostle. 
That  this  is  no  subjective  judgment  of  his  own,  as 
to  what  books  ought  to  be  received  on  their  own 
merits,  but  his  simple  testimony  to  a  historical 
fact,  appears  from  his  adding  to  the  list,  "  hsec  sunt 
quse  patres  inter  canonem  concluserunt,"  using  the 
word  canon  just  as  we  do,  and  describing  it  as 
closed  or  completed,  not  by  him  or  his  contempo 
raries,  but  by  the  patres,  meaning,  no  doubt,  those 
of  the  primitive  or  apostolic  age.  That  he  does  not 
understand  by  canonical  (as  Semler  did)  such  books 
as  were  used  in  public  worship,  appears  from  his 
enumerating  others  which  he  calls  ecclesiastic^  and 
not  canonici,  because  the  fathers  willed  them  to  be 
read  in  Church,  but  not  to  be  adduced  in  proof  of 
doctrine  (such  as  the  Shepherd  of  Ilermas,  and  Old 
Testament  Apocrypha),  and  then  distinguishes  from 
both  classes  the  New  Testament  Apocrypha,  "  quae 
legi  noluerunt."  The  same  facts  are  abundantly 
attested  by  the  still  more  eminent  contemporaries, 
Jerome  and  Augustin. 

§  52.  This  individual  testimony,  which  would 


40  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUKE. 

be  almost  conclusive  by  itself,  is  confirmed  as  to 
the  most  essential  point,  by  two  contemporary 
councils,  botli  held  in  North  Africa,  then  one  of  the 
most  prosperous  and  enlightened  portions  of  the 
Church,  within  the  last  ten  years  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury.  The  Council  of  Hippo  (A.  D.  393),  after  or 
dering  that  nothing  shall  be  read  in  church,  under 
the  name  of  Divine  Scriptures,  "  prseter  Scrip  turas 
canonicas,"  proceeds  to  specify  them  in  the  most 
deliberate  and  formal  manner :  "  Sunt  autem  ca- 
nonicse  scriptures  evangeliorum  libri  quatuor," — 
then  follows  one  book  of  Acts,  13  epistles  of  Paul, 
"  ejusdem  ad  llebrseos  una," — 2  of  Peter,  3  of 
John,  1  of  James,  1  of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse  of 
John,  just  the  Canon  of  Bufinus,  and  our  own.  To 
this  decree  it  is  added :  "  de  confirmando  isto  ca- 
none  transmauna  ecclesia  consulatur  " — and  accord 
ingly  we  find  it  confirmed,  not  only  by  a  council  at 
Carthage  four  years  later  (A.  D.  397),  but  soon  after 
by  the  bishop  of  Eome  (Innocent  I.),  and  long 
after  by  a  Roman  council  (A.  D.  494),  showing 
that  no  change  had  taken  place  within  a  century, 
as  none  has  taken  place  within  the  fourteen  centu 
ries  that  follow. 


§  52.  How  is  his  testimony  confirmed  ?     What  is  that  of  the 
Council  of  Hippo  ?    By  what  other  witnesses  is  it  confirmed  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  41 

§  53.  Going  further  back  in  the  fourth  century, 
we  find  among  the  writings  of  Athanasius,  the  most 
eminent  Greek  Father  of  that  age,  and  the  cham 
pion  of  the  Nicene  faith  against  the  Arians,  a  list 
of  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  com 
prising  the  4  Gospels,  Acts,  7  Catholic  epistles,  14 
of  Paul,  and  the  book  of  Revelation,  as  to  which 
last  it  is  added,  that  it  was  received  as  John's  by 
the  ancient  saints  (or  holy)  and  inspired  Fathers. 
This,  although  in  favor  of  the  book,  implies  that  some 
held  a  different  opinion,  and  is  the  first  intimation 
that  we  come  to  m  this  retrograde  inquiry,  of  the 
least  dissent  from  the  existing  canon,  which  was 
then  received  not  only  in  the  Greek  and  Latin,  but 
the  Syrian  Church,  as  we  learn  from  the  fact  that 
Ephrem  Syrus,  its  greatest  representative,  who  died 
A.  D.  378,  quotes  in  his  extant  writings  every  one 
of  our  twenty-seven  books. 

§  54.  A  contemporary  Father  of  great  emi 
nence,  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  says  of  the  Apoca 
lypse  that  some  receive  it  (eytcpivovo-iv),  but  that 

§  53.  What  is  the  testimony  of  Athanasius,  or  a  contemporary 
writer  ?  What  intimation  does  he  give  with  respect  to  the  Apoca 
lypse?  By  what  distinct  branches  of  the  Church  was  our  canon 
then  received  ? 

•  §  51.  What  does  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  say  of  the  Apocalypse  ? 
What  is  the  canon  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  ?  What  is  that  of  the 
Council  of  Laodicea  ?  Why  is  its  genuineness  not  essential  ? 


42  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE. 

the  majority  pronounce  it  spurious  (ol  TrXetou?  vodov 
\eyovo-i).  Another,  equally  distinguished,  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  omits  it  in  his  catalogue  (including  the 
4  Gospels,  with  a  positive  exclusion  of  all  others,  as 
tyev$£7n,ypa&a  KCLI  /3\a/3epa,  Acts  of  12  Apostles,  T 
Catholic  epistles  of  James,  Peter,  John,  and  Jude 
—14:  epistles  of  Paul),  then  adds  :  TAAOIUAUA- 
NTAEEfi  KElSSftENdETTEPni.  Precisely 
the  same  canon  is  contained  in  a  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Laodicea  (360 — 364),  which  some  reject 
as  spurious,  but  which  certainly  belongs  to  the  fourth 
century,  and  if  not  the  testimony  of  a  council,  is 
at  least  that  of  another  (although,  an  unknown)  in 
dividual. 

§  55.  "When  we  reach  the  early  part  of  the  fourth 
century  we  come  to  the  famous  canon  of  Eusebius, 
bishop  of  Cesarea,  the  confidential  friend  of  Constan 
tino  the  Great,  and  "  Father  of  Church  history." 
He  divides  the  Christian  books  of  his  day  into  three 
great  classes :  I.  'llomologumena^  acknowledged, 
undisputed.  II.  Aritilegomena,  assailed  or  called 
in  question.  III.  Notlia,  or  (atopa  Tcai  dysscbc). 

§  55.  What  was  the  canon  of  Eusebius  ?  What  books  does  ho 
refer  to  the  several  classes  ?  What  doubtful  position  does  he  give 
to  the  Apocalypse  ?  How  docs  he  name  the  classes  elsewhere  ? 
Wh y  does  he  place  the  Apocalypse  in  the  first  and  third  divisions  ? 
How  is  it  judged  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria — and  why? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  43 

Under  the  first  head  he  enumerates  the  Four  Gos 
pels,  Acts,  Epistles  of  Paul  (without  name  or  num 
ber),  1  John,  1  Peter,  and  Apocalypse,  el/ye,  fyaveirj. 
Under  the  third  head  he  enumerates  several 
gospels  and  acts  of  the  apostles,  now  univer 
sally  rejected  as  apocryphal,  with  the  Book  of 
Revelation,  as  before,  el  (fjavelf].  Between  these, 
under  the  title  of  Antilegomena,  he  names  the  five 
smaller  Catholic  epistles,  with  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
the  Shepherd  of  Ilermas.  The  last  two  have  been 
universally  rejected,  and  the  other  five  as  univer 
sally  received,  since  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  as 
we  have  seen.  In  another  place,  Eusebius  calls  the 
first  class  Sacred  Scriptures,  represents  the  second 
as  objected  to,  but  read  in  most  churches,  and  de 
scribes  the  third  as  "  spurious,  and  alien  from  apos 
tolical  orthodoxy."  In  a  third  place  he  mentions 
seven  Catholic  epistles.  He  nowhere  expresses 
any  doubt  of  his  own,  even  as  to  the  Apocalypse  or 
Antilegomena,  but  only  records  that  of  others. 
Ilis  placing  the  Apocalypse  in  the  first  or  third 
class,  not  the  second,  seems  to  imply  that  if  not  the 
work  of  an  apostle,  it  was  an  "  absurd  and  impious  " 
forgery.  Towards  the  close  of  the  third  cen 
tury,  we  find  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  admitting 
the  Apocalypse  to  be  inspired,  but  denying  the 
authorship  of  John,  entirely  from  internal  evidence. 


44:  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATTJEE. 

§  56.  A  little  earlier,  Origen,  the  master  of  this 
Dionysius,  and  the  most  distinguished  Father  of 
that  age,  includes  the  Book  of  Revelation  in  a  list 
of  the  canonical  books,  and  names  John  as  its 
author,  but  omits  the. five  shorter  Catholic  epistles, 
and  describes  that  to  the  Hebrews  as  containing 
Paul's  thoughts  in  the  language  of  another.  He 
elsewhere  mentions  that  of  James  as  current  (</>e/jo- 
Hevrj)  under  that  name,  and  2  Peter,  2  and  3 
John,  as  doubted  by  others — and  he  once  speaks  of 
Peter's  two  epistles,  and  of  John's  in  the  plural 
number,  and  refers  to  those  of  James  and  Jude. 
His  voluminous  writings,  some  of  which  are  lost, 
are  said  to  contain  abundant  quotations  from  all 
the  books  now  in  the  Canon.  This  may  serve  to 
show  that  mere  omissions  in  these  ancient  cata 
logues  must  not  be  made  to  prove  too  much. 

§  57.  Cyprian,  Origen's  contemporary  in  the 
Western  Church,  refers  to  all  the  books  now  in  the 
Canon,  except  Hebrews,  'James,  2  Peter,  2  and 
3  John,  and  Jude.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Ori 
gen's  predecessor  and  preceptor  (A.  D.  220),  rec- 

§  56.  What  is  the  canon  of  Origen?  How  does  he  vary  from  it 
elsewhere  ?  What  parts  of  the  New  Testament  are  quoted  in  his 
writings?  What  may  be  inferred  from  this  ? 

§  57.  What  is  the  Canon  of  Cyprian  ?  What  is  that  of  Clemens 
Alexandrinus?  What  is  that  of  Irenzeus? 


NEW.  TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.    .  45 

ognizes  the  four  Gospels,  Acts,  13  Epistles  of  Paul, 

1  of  Peter,  1  of  John,  1  of  Jude,  and  the  Book  of 
Revelation.     Hebrews  he  supposes  to  have  been 
originally   written    by   Paul,    and   translated   into 
Greek  by  Luke.     The  same  writer  comments  upon 

2  John,  and  alludes  to  James  and  2  Peter,  without 
naming  them.     His  contemporary,  Tertullian,  the 
oldest  of  the  Latin  Fathers  (A.  D.  222),  mentions 
all  the  books  except  2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  "but 
represents  Hebrews,  though  canonical,  as  the  work 
of  Barnabas.     Irenseus,  a  connecting  link  between 
the  second  and  third  century,  and  also  between  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  Church,  does  not  mention 

3  John,  alludes  to  James  and  2   Peter,  without 
naming  them,  regards  Hebrews  as  canonical,  but 
not  of  Pauline  origin,  and  recognizes  all  the  other 
books  as  we  do. 

§  58.  The  Muratori  Canon,  a  fragment  found  at 
Rome  in  the  18th  century,  contains  a  list  of  the 
books  read  in  churches  in  the  time  of  Pius  I.,  who 
was  bishop  of  Rome  during  the  second  century, 
omitting  James,  and  leaving  2  Peter  doubtful, 
and  giving  Hebrews  a  different  name,  and  not  as 
signing  it  a  place  with  Paul's  epistles.  The  Peshito 

§  58.  What  is  the  Huratori  Cauon?  What  is  the  Peshito? 
What  books  of  the  New  Testament  does  it  omit?  What  lines  of 
testimony  here  converge  ? 


46  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

or  old  Syriac  version,  made  near  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  or  early  in  the  third,  omits  2  Peter,  2 
and  3  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation,  all  which  are 
found  in  a  few  manuscripts,  but  probably  of  later 
date.  As  to  most  of  the  books,  we  have  thus  con 
current  testimony,  at  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
from  Gaul,  Asia  Minor,  Egypt,  Italy,  and  Car 
thage. 

§  59.  Beyond  this  point  we  have  no  formal 
catalogues,  but  only  references  and  quotations, 
the  paucity  of  which  may  be  accounted  for  by 
the  paucity  of  writings  which  contain  them ;  by 
the  slow  communication  in  the  ancient  world, 
which  caused  some  writings  to  be  late  in  gaining 
general  circulation ;  and  by  the  authority  which 
still  belonged  to  oral  tradition,  making  reference 
less  necessary,  even  to  books  w^hich  were  acknowl 
edged  as  inspired,  and  therefore  as  canonical.  But 
the  aggregate  testimony  of  the  first  and  second  cen 
turies  is  amply  sufficient  to  establish  the  reception 
of  the  Gospels,  Acts,  13  epistles  of  Paul,  that  to 
the  Hebrews,  though  not  always  under  his  name, 
1  Peter,  1  John,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation. 

§  59.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  testimony  beyond  this  point? 
How  may  the  paucity  of  references  be  accounted  for  ?  What  is 
the  sum  of  the  testimonies  of  the  first  two  centuries  ?  "What  is  the 
result  of  the  whole  induction  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  47 

Of  the  remaining  books,  the  one  most  frequently 
alluded  to  is  Jude,  then  2  John,  then  James, 
then  3  John,  and  then  2  Peter,  which  is  not  ex 
pressly  quoted  in  the  first  or  second  century,  though 
mentioned  near  its  close  by  Irenseus  and  Clement 
of  Alexandria.  The  result  of  this  induction  may 
be  therefore  summarily  stated  thus,  that  20  of  the 
books  now  included  in  the  Canon  have  been  homo- 
logumena,  or  undisputed  ab  initio  ;  while  the  other 
seven  are  less  frequently  referred  to  in  the  early 
ages,  and  afterwards  spoken  of  as  antilegomena, 
though  universally  received  into  the  Canon  at  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century. 

§  60.  The  question  now  is,  not  whether  these  seven 
books  shall  be  received  to  an  inferior  place  in  the 
Canon,  as  proposed  by  Augustine  and  some  of  the 
Reformers,  but  rejected  even  by  the  Council  of 
Trent ;  but  whether  they  are  entitled  to  a  position 
of  perfect  equality  with  all  the  rest.  The  obvious 
reason  is,  because  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
half-canonical  or  half-inspired ;  a  writing  must  be 

§  60.  Why  can  there  not  be  a  secondary  canon  ?  What  is  the 
true  state  of  the  question  as  to  the  antilegomena  ?  What  is  the 
natural  presumption  ?  Where  is  the  onus  probandi  ?  What  charge 
is  brought  against  the  ancient  church  ?  How  far  is  it  -well  founded  ? 
How  may  it  be  disproved  in  this  case  ?  What  absurd  assumption 
would  be  otherwise  required  ? 


48          NEW  TESTAMEKT  LITEKATUKE. 

either  wholly  so  or  not  at  all.  ISPor  is  the  question, 
why  should  We  receive  these  books,  as  they  were 
certainly  received  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century ; 
but  why  should  we  reject  them.  The  presumption 
raised  by  their  reception  then,  perhaps  on  evidence 
no  longer  in  existence,  throws  the  burden  of  proof 
on  those  who  wrould  exclude  them.  !Nor  is  this 
presumption  weakened  by  the  charge  of  uncritical 
negligence,  which  some  allege  against  the  ancient 
church,  a  charge  not  wholly  groundless  with  re 
spect  to  the  text,  but  shown  to  be  so  with  respect 
to  the  Canon,  by  the  very  doubts  and  difficulties 
now  in  question  ;  unless  we  absurdly  assume  that 
the  caution  previously  exercised  was  suddenly 
abandoned  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century. 

§  61.  The  only  question  which  remains  is, 
whether  the  acknowledged  doubts  and  hesitations 
as  to  these  seven  books  can  be  accounted  for  on 
grounds  consistent  with  their  having  been  canon 
ical  from  the  beginning.  It  is  not  required  that 
the  proof  be  as  clear  and  as  abundant  as  it  is  in  the 
case  of  the  other  books,  but  only  that  it  be  suffi 
cient  to  remove  all  reasonable  doubt  upon  the  sub- 

§  Gl.  What  is  the  remaining  question?  What  is  and  what  is 
not  required  as  to  the  evidence  ?  How  far  (or  in  what  case)  are  we 
bound  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of  the  church  at  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century  ? 


NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE.          49 

ject,  and  confirm  the  strong  presumption  which 
arises  from  the  fact  that  at  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  the  balance,  which  had  oscillated  for  a 
course  of  ages,  was  unanimously  held  to  preponder 
ate  in  favour  of  the  books  in  question.  This  deci 
sion  we  are  not  only  authorized,  but  bound,  to 
acquiesce  in,  as  the  church  has  acquiesced  in  it  for 
fourteen  hundred  years,  provided  we  can  find  any 
probable  solution  of  the  question  why  these  books, 
if  canonical,  were  ever  called  in  question. 

§  62.  The  sufficiency  of  such  an  explanation 
will  not  be  impaired,  but  rather  strengthened,  by 
its  not  being  uniform  or  perfectly  identical  in 
reference  to  all  the  books  in  question.  Such  a 
sameness  might  indeed  be  suspicious,  or  indicative 
of  concert  or  contrivance  for  the  purpose  of  secur 
ing  their  admission  to  the  Canon.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  all,  or  nearly  all,  admit  of  different  solutions, 
resting  upon  different  circumstances  in  the  origin 
and  history,  or  in  their  character  and  contents, 
there  will  be  no  ground  for  the  suspicion  above 
mentioned,  nor  for  any  further  hesitation  in  accept 
ing  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  Christian  writ 
ers  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  that  these  books 

§  62.  Why  is  perfect  uniformity  of  explanation  neither  neces 
sary  nor  desirable  ?    What  is  now  to  be  shown — and  how  ? 
3 


50  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

were  entitled  to  an  absolute  equality  in  this  respect, 
with  all  the  others,  as  having  been  canonical  from 
the  beginning.  That  there  is  varied  yet  harmo 
nious  solution  in  the  case  of  all  these  books,  we 
now  proceed  to  show,  going  only  so  far  into  the  de 
tails  as  may  be  necessary  for  this  purpose,  and  re 
serving  all  the  rest  for  other  and  more  suitable 
occasions.  (See  above,  §§  44,  45). 

§  G3.  With  respect  to  the  Epistle  to  the  He 
brews,  the  peculiar  and  decisive  fact  is,  that  the 
ancient  doubts  had  no  relation  to  its  canonicity,  but 
only  to  its  authorship,  which  is  not  an  essential 
circumstance,  since  many  books  of  Scripture  are 
anonymous,  and  the  authorship  of  some  entirely 
uncertain.  That  some  should  have  doubted  whether 
Paul,  whose  name  appears  in  all  his  other  writings, 
would  omit  it  in  this  one,  was  natural  enough,  es 
pecially  before  men  had  considered  any  of  the  pos 
sible  solutions  of  this  singular  departure  from  his 
otherwise  invariable  practice,  such,  for  example, 
singling  one  out  of  many,  as  that  when  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  found  it  necessary  to  address  the 

§  63.  "What  were  the  ancient  doubts  respecting  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  ?  How  may  they  be  accounted  for  ?  How  may  the 
omission  of  the  author's  name  be  accounted  for  ?  How  far  is  this 
assumption  necessary  ?  Why  would  this  epistle  be  longer  than  the 
rest  in  becoming  generally  known  ? 


NEW    TESTAMENT   LITER ATUEE.  51 

Hebrew  Christians,  lie  omitted  that  official  descrip 
tion  of  himself  which  adds  so  much  to  his  authority 
when  writing  to  the  Gentile  churches.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  affirm  that  this  was  really  the  reason, 
but  only  that  it  may  be  thus  and  otherwise  ac 
counted  for,  and  also  that  the  class  of  readers  ob 
viously  addressed  in  this  epistle  would  of  course 
prevent  its  being  known  so  early  or  diffused  so 
widely  as  those  which  bore  the  author's  name,  and 
were  addressed  to  Gentile  churches  or  believers. 

§  61.  The  Epistle  of  James  is  not  anonymous, 
but  bears  a  name  of  doubtful  application,  having 
been  really  ascribed  to  three  different  persons  so 
called,  namely,  James  the  Son  of  Zebedee,  James 
the  Son  of  Alpheus,  and  James  the  Brother  of  the 
Lord,  whom  many  still  believe  to  be  distinct  from 
both  the  others.  This  uncertainty  might  be  suffi 
cient  of  itself  to  cause  some  hesitation,  which  would 
be  of  course  increased  by  the  erroneous  impression, 
current  in  all  ages,  of  a  doctrinal  diversity  between 
James  and  Paul  as  to  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  jus 
tification.  If  sucli  an  one  as  Martin  Luther,  in  his 
zeal  for  that  articulus  stantis  et  codeatis  ecclesiai, 
could  rashly  for  a  time  expunge  this  epistle  from 

§  64.  What  was  the  first  ground  of  hesitation  as  to  the  epistle 
of  James?  What  was  another  more  important  ground  ?  How  did 
it  operate  in  later  times  ?  Why  is  it  now  without  force  ? 


52  NEW    TESTAMENT    LITEEATUEE. 

the  Canon,  surely  the  same  mistake  might  generate 
some  doubt  and  hesitation  in  the  ancient  church, 
although  it  was  canonical  from  the  beginning. 

§  65.  Of  the  four  smaller  writings,  Jude  and 
2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  it  may  be  observed  in 
general  that  they  are  all  comparatively  short  and 
therefore  furnish  relatively  little  matter  for  quota 
tion,  which  accounts  for  the  paucity  of  references  to 
them  by  the  early  Christian  writers,  a  fact  no  more 
decisive  of  their  being  uncanonical  than  the  same 
fact  proves  the  same  thing  of  the  shortest  of  Paul's 
writings  (the  epistle  to  Philemon)  which  has  never 
been  disputed.  Of  Jude  and  2  Peter  in  particu 
lar,  it  may  be  further  said  that  one  cause  of  sus 
picion,  in  the  minds  of  some,  was  a  remarkable 
resemblance,  not  in  sentiment  or  substance  merely, 
but  in  minute  forms  of  expression,  so  that  one 
might  seem  to  have  been  copied  from  the  other. 
Now  on  the  natural  though  false  assumption,  that  but 
one  could  be  canonical,  a  view  refuted  by  the  ob 
vious  analogy  of  other  scriptures,*  it  is  easy  to 

*  Compare  Ps.  14  and  53;  Ps.  18  and  2  Sam.  22;  Isai.  36  38, 
and  2  Kings,  18. 


§  65.  "What  remark  applies  to  the  four  smaller  catholic  epistles  ? 
What  may  be  said  of  Jude  and  2  Peter  in  particular?  Why  is 
there  really  no  ground  for  doubt  or  hesitation  ?  What  of  2  and 
3  John  ?  What  is  the  result  of  these  considerations? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUKE.  53 

imagine  that  the  public  judgment  might  be  long 
embarrassed  and  divided,  although  finally  con 
vinced  that  each  had  held  a  place  in  the  original 
canon.  On  the  other  hand,  2  and  3  John  are 
both  extremely  short,  being  in  fact  the  smallest 
distinct  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  both  in 
their  immediate  form  and  purpose  very  personal 
and  private,  and  lastly  both  anonymous  or  half  so, 
as  the  writer  describes,  but  does  not  name  himself. 
All  these  are  reasons  which  in  part  account  for  the 
deliberation  of  the  ancients  in  admitting  these  epis 
tles  to  the  canon,  though  entitled  to  a  place  there 
ab  initio. 

§  66.  Different  as  these  cases  are  from  one  an 
other,  they  are  no  less  different  from  that  of  the 
Apocalypse  (or  book  of  Revelation)  which  is  quite 
unique  and  sui  generis.  The  main  fact  here  is,  that 
in  tracing  the  books  upward,  after  finding  this  one 
undisputed  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  we 
come  first  to  vague  intimations,  then  to  positive  as 
sertions,  and  at  last  to  argumentative  attempts  at 
demonstrations,  that  it  cannot  be  canonical ;  but 
passing  on  still  further,  we  discover  it  completely 

§  66.  How  docs  the  case  of  the  Apocalypse  differ  from  the 
others  ?  How  may  this  be  stated  in  the  reverse  order  ?  To  what 
may  the  canonical  history  of  this  book  be  likened  ?  How  may  its 
omission  in  the  Peshito  be  accounted  for?  What  modern  analogy 


54:  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

reinstated,  and  the  recognition  of  it  more  or  less 
distinctly  running  back  to  the  very  age  of  the  apos 
tles.  In  other  words,  the  book  was  first  received 
by  all,  then  suspected  or  condemned  by  some,  and 
then  again  unanimously  recognized  as  genuine. 
It  simply  suffered  an  eclipse,  which  like  literal 
eclipses,  was  of  brief  duration,  and  has  now  been 
past  for  more  than  1400  years.  But  how  can  we 
account  for  this  eclipse  —  for  this  rejection  of  the 
book  by  certain  Fathers,  and  for  its  omission  in  the 
old  Peshito  version  ?  If  this  last  fact  be  conceded, 
as  it  is  not  by  all  writers  of  distinction,  a  sufficient 
explanation  is  afforded  by  the  circumstance,  that 
versions  of  the  Scripture  were  originally  made,  not 
for  private  circulation  but  for  use  in  public  worship, 
and  that  this  book  may  have  been  omitted  as  un- 
suited  to  that  purpose,  though  believed  to  be  can 
onical,  precisely  as  the  Church  of  England  now 
omits  it  almost  wholly  in  her  calendar  of  lessons, 
but  expressly  names  it  as  a  part  of  Holy  Scripture 
in  her  articles  of  faith.  A  no  less  plausible  and 
even  satisfactory  solution  of  the  other  fact  in  refer 
ence  to  this  book,  namely,  its  exclusion  from  the 
canon  by  some  Fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 


light  on  this  hypothesis  ?  How  may  the  rejection  of  this 
book  by  certain  councils  and  fathers  be  explained?  What  shows 
this  explanation  to  be  the  true  one? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  55 

turics,  is  furnished  by  the  well-known  circumstance, 
that  chiliastic  doctrines  of  a  very  gross  form  then 
extensively  prevailed,  though  constantly  repudiated 
by  the  church  at  large,  and  so  abhorred  by  some 
distinguished  teachers  that  it  tempted  them  to 
sweep  away  its  alleged  foundation  by  discrediting 
the  part  of  Scripture  which  contained  it.  That  this 
dangerous  principle  of  exegesis  was  maintained  and 
acted  on  by  some,  is  certain ;  and  that  this  great 
error  was  the  cause  of  the  eclipse  before  referred  to, 
is  apparent  from  the  circumstance,  that  as  soon  as 
the  obstruction  offered  by  the  chiliastic  errors  dis 
appeared,  or  was  reduced  to  harmless  compass,  the 
Apocalypse  shone  forth  again  with  all  its  ancient 
but  mysterious  splendour. 

§67.  AVe  have  now  seen  that  in  reference  to  all 
these  once  disputed  books,  there  is,  to  say  the  least, 
a  possible  solution  of  the  doubts  which  once  ex 
isted,  perfectly  consistent  with  their  primitive  and 
perfect  canonicity,  and,  therefore,  that  we  have  no 
reasonable  ground  for  refusing  to  accept  the  verdict 
of  the  church  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
which  put  these  seven  books  upon  an  absolute 

§  67.  What  is  the  general  result  of  this  examination  ?  How- 
does  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  those  books  compare  with 
that  for  other  ancient  writings,  such  as  the  Apocrypha,  the  Apostol 
ical  Fathers,  the  Greek  and  Roman  Classics? 


56  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATTJKE. 

equality,  in  this  point,  with  the  other  twenty.  Of 
the  whole  collection,  thus  restored  to  its  original 
completeness  and  unity,  it  may  now  be  observed,  in 
conclusion,  that  the  proof  of  its  authenticity  and 
genuineness  far  surpasses  not  only  that  of  all  apoc 
ryphal  productions,  which  is  saying  nothing,  nor 
that  of  any  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  which  is  saying 
much,  but  that  of  any  or  of  all  the  ancient  writings  in 
existence,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  which  repose  upon  the  same  foundation, 
but  without  excepting  the  most  valued  and  familiar 
of  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics,  whether  Homer, 
Plato,  Cicero,  or  Virgil,  the  identity  of  whose  im 
mortal  writings  no  one  ever  dreams  of  questioning, 
though  far  less  satisfactorily  attested  than  the 
twenty-seven  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

§  68.  The  reception  of  these  twenty-seven  books 
into  the  Canon  is,  ipso  facto,  the  exclusion  of  all 
others  which  have  ever  claimed  a  place  there,  or 
have  been  considered  as  entitled  to  it.  This  defini 
tion  or  description  comprehends  two  very  different 
sorts  of  ancient  writings,  the  Apostolical  Fathers 
and  the  so-called  New  Testament  Apocrypha. 
Sonic  account  of  both  will  be  given  below,  under 


§  68.  What  books  are  excluded  by  the  settlement  of  the  Canon? 
"Where  does  the  description  of  these  books  belong  ?     What  is  the 


NEW   TESTAMENT    LITEKATUKE.  57 

the  head  of  Hellenistic  Literature.*  All  that  is 
necessary  here  is  to  guard  against  a  false  assump 
tion  of  some  German  writers,  that  all  these  books, 
canonical  and  apocryphal  were  promiscuously  used 
at  first,  and  on  precisely  the  same  footing,  but  that 
out  of  these  the  improving  taste  and  judgment  of 
the  Christians  finally  selected  those  which  consti 
tute  the  present  canon.  This  hypothesis,  though 
plausible,  and  seemingly  innocuous,  would  lead  to 
very  dangerous  conclusions,  making  it  impossible 
to  separate  the  elements,  and  leaving  us  but  one  al 
ternative — either  that  both  are  equally  inspired  or 
neither.  The  true  state  of  the  case  is,  that  no 
books  except  those  now  contained  in  the  canon, 
were  entitled  to  a  place  there  ab  initio ;  that  in 
stead  of  the  canonical  books  being  chosen  out  of 
the  whole  mass  of  Christian  writings,  the  apocry 
phal  books  arose  from  imitation  of  them.  The 
great  number  of  the  latter  goes  to  show  the  neces 
sity  of  caution  and  discrimination  in  the  ancient 
church,  and  to  enhance  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
Canon  as  it  now  is,  by  contrasting  the  small  num- 

*  See  above,  §  46,  and  below,  §§  129,  140. 

erroneous  modern  view  of  the  relation  originally  borne  by  these 
books  to  those  now  in  the  Canon  ?  Why  is  this  a  dangerous  hy 
pothesis  ?  What  is  the  true  state  of  the  case  as  to  the  Canon  and 
Apocrypha  ?  How  does  this  enhance  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
former  ? 

3* 


58  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEBATUKE. 

ber  of  the  books  which  it  contains  with  the  multi 
tude  which  clamoured  for  admission,  in  the  age  suc 
ceeding  that  of  the  Apostles. 

§  69.  Having  now  determined,  in  a  general 
way,  what  book  is  entitled  to  the  name  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  what  are  the  writings  which  com 
pose  it,  we  are  ready  for  the  next  inquiry,  as  to  the 
original  language,  or  what  is  technically  called 
New  Testament  Philology.  That  this  is  in  its 
proper  place  between  the  Canon  and  the  Text 
(§  43)  is  plain,  because  until  we  have  identified  the 
book,  we  cannot  ascertain  the  language  ;  and  until 
this  is  done,  we  cannot  think  of  ascertaining  the 
ipsissima  verba,  which  of  course  have  no  existence 
even  in  the  most  exact  translation.  A  familiar  il 
lustration  may  be  borrowed  from  the  case  of  one  to 
whom  a  definite  number  of  important  papers  have 
been  solemnly  entrusted  for  a  certain  purpose.  The 
papers,  it  may  be  supposed,  as  well  as  the  receptacle 
which  holds  them,  are  all  sealed  and  labelled,  and 
may  thus  be  identified,  before  he  opens  them.  But 
having  ascertained  that  they  are  all  in  his  posses 
sion,  he  proceeds  to  examine  their  contents,  and,  as 
the  first  step,  to  discover  in  what  language  they 

§  G9.  What  is  the  second  topic  of  General  Introduction  ?  Why 
is  this  its  proper  place  in  the  arrangement  of  the  topics  ?  How 
may  this  be  familiarly  illustrated  ? 


NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEKATURE.  59 

are  written,  and  whether  it  is  one  with  which  he  is 
acquainted  ;  after  which  he  may  consider  the  par 
ticular  expressions. 

§  TO.  If  each  of  the  twenty-seven  books  were  writ 
ten  in  a  language  of  its  own,  or  several  in  one  and 
several  in  another,  this  whole  topic  would  of  course 
belong  to  Special  Introduction.  But  as  all  the 
books,  as  far  as  we  can  trace  them,  are  in  one  and 
the  same  language,  what  we  have  to  say  of  it  ap 
plies  to  the  New  Testament  collectively,  and  there 
fore  forms  a  necessary  part  of  General  Introduction. 
(§§  18,  30,  33.)  It  is  all  reducible  to  four  leading 
questions :  1.  What  was  the  original  language  of 
the  New  Testament  ?  2.  Why  was  it  different 
from  that  of  the  Old  ?  3.  Why  was  Greek  selected 
for  this  purpose  ?  4.  What  kind  of  Greek  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament  ?  The  answers  to  these  ques 
tions  will  constitute  the  topics  of  New  Testa 
ment  Philology,  as  we  shall  treat  it — dwelling 
chiefly  on  the  last,  or  the  history  and  character  of 
the  Hellenistic  dialect,  in  which  the  New  Testa 
ment  is  written. 

§  71.  The  first  question   (what   is  the  original 

§  70.  Why  does  this  topic  necessarily  belong  to  General  Intro 
duction  ?  To  what  four  questions  may  it  be  reduced  ?  "\Yhich  of 
these  will  require  most  attention  ? 


60  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE. 

language  of  the  New  Testament  ?)  may  seem  super 
fluous,  or  answerable  in  a  single  syllable  ;  but  this 
has  not  been  always  an  unanimous  response.  As 
examples  of  remarkable  dissent  from  it  may  here 
be  specified  the  notion  of  the  Jesuit  Harduin  who, 
in  his  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament  (1741), 
gravely  insisted  that  all  the  books  were  written  in 
Latin,  except  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  was 
written  in  Greek,  then  translated  into  Latin,  and 
then  retranslated  into  Greek.  The  motive  of  this 
singular  paradox  was  no  doubt  to  put  honour  on 
the  Latin  Ytilgate,  as  declared  to  be  "  authentic  " 
by  the  Council  of  Trent.  A  very  different  motive, 
the  desire  to  escape  from  exegetical  embarrass 
ments,  led  Bolten,  in  his  work  on  the  Epistles 
(1800),  to  maintain  that  they  were  dictated  by  Paul 
in  Aramaic,  and  written  down  in  Greek  by  his 
amanuensis,  whose  errors  of  translation  wrould  ac 
count  for  most  of  the  existing  difficulties.  Both 
these  opinions  are  remembered  only  as  curiosities 
of  literary  history.  The  questions  still  raised  as  to 
one  or  two  books,  more  particularly  Matthew's  Gos 
pel,  belong  properly  to  Special  Introduction,  and 

§  71.  Why  is  the  first  question  not  superfluous  ?  What  was  Har- 
duin's  notion?  What  was  Bolten's  ?  How  are  these  opinions  now 
regarded?  How  is  the  general  fact  affected  by  the  doubts  as  to 
one  or  two  books  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  Cl 

will  there  be  fully  treated.  Bat  even  as  to  these 
books,  it  is  not  disputed  that,  so  far  as  we  can  trace 
them,  they  have  always  worn  a  Greek  dress,  so  that 
even  if  they  were  originally  written  in  another  lan 
guage,  which  is  not  the  case,  as  we  shall  see  below, 
they  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  exceptions  to  the 
general  statement,  that  the  whole  New  Testament 
is  composed  in  Greek. 

§  72.  The  fact  suggested  by  the  second  question 
(why  was  the  ]S"ew  Testament  written  in  a  differ 
ent  language  from  the  Old  ?)  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  matter  of  course,  since  all  the  antecedent  prob 
abilities  were  in  favour  of  Hebrew  as  having  been 
already  used  for  the  same  purpose^  and  thereby 
specially  adapted  to  it,  as  well  as  invested  with  a 
certain  sanctity,  over  and  above  the  prestige  of  its 
antiquity  and  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  oldest  of 
all  extant  tongues,  if  not  the  primitive  language 
of  mankind.  To  refer  the  adoption  of  another  lan 
guage  in  the  Christian  revelation  to  the  sovereign 
will  of  God,  is  not  explaining  it,  but  simply  a  con 
fession  that  it  cannot  be  explained.  The  question 
is  not  whether  God  so  willed  it,  which  is  absolutely 


§  72.  "What  is  the  second  question  ?  Why  is  it  not  a  matter  of 
course  ?  Why  were  the  antecedent  probabilities  all  in  favour  of 
Hebrew  ?  Why  is  it  not  explained  by  a  reference  to  the  sovereign 
will  of  God  ? 


62  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

certain,  but  whether  he  willed  it  for  a  purpose 
scrutable  by  us.  If  so,  though  under  no  necessity 
of  knowing  what  that  purpose  is,  we  are  at  liberty 
to  seek  for  it,  and  ascertain  it,  as  an  aid  in  solving 
other  questions. 

§  73.  The  most  satisfactory  solution  of  this  ques- 
ton  is,  that  each  revelation  was  conveyed  by  the 
vehicle  best  suited  to  its  purpose — the  national  and 
local  revelation  in  the  language  of  the  chosen  peo 
ple — the  oecumenical  or  universal  revelation  in  the 
language  of  the  civilized  world.  In  the  age  of  the 
Old  Testament  the  Hebrew  was  moreover  in  itself 
the  best  adapted  to  the  ends  of  a  divine  revelation  ; 
but  at  the  close  of  the  four  centuries  which  inter- 

4 

vened  between  the  two,  that  language  had  not  only 
never  spread  beyond  the  people  who  originally 
spoke  it,  but  had  ceased  to  be  vernacular  even 
among  them  ;  while  the  Aramaic  dialect  which 
superseded  it  had  neither  the  prestige  of  great  an 
tiquity,  nor  special  adaptation,  nor  the  sanctity  of 
long  association,  nor  remarkable  intrinsic  qualities 
to  recommend  it. 

§  74.  It  may  be  objected  to  this  explanation, 

§  73.  What  is  the  most  satisfactory  solution  ?  What  change 
had  Hebrew  undergone  during  the  interval  of  four  hundred  years 
between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  ?  Why  had  the  Aramaic  no 
claim  to  succeed  it  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  63 

that  it  makes  an  invidious  distinction  between  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  as  if  the  latter  only  were 
designed  for  permanent  and  perpetual  use.  But 
this  is  a  mistake  very  easily  corrected  by  observing, 
that  the  difference  in  question  has  respect  only  to 
the  primary  form  of  the  communication,  not  to  its 
continued  use ;  just  as  the  form  of  Paul's  epistles 
was  determined  by  their  being  actually  sent  as  let 
ters  to  certain  individuals  and  churches,  though  de 
signed  from  the  beginning  to  be  permanently  left 
on  record  for  the  use  of  all  believers  in  succeeding 
ages.  So,  too,  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  though  origi 
nally  meant  for  the  instruction  of  a  single  race,  and, 
therefore,  written  in  a  language  never  used  as  a  ver 
nacular  by  any  other,  were  designed  from  the  be 
ginning  to  form  part  of  a  perpetual  and  universal 
revelation  of  the  will  of  God  to  all  mankind 
throughout  all  ages. 

§  75.  To  the  third  question  (why  was  Greek 
selected  as  the  language  of  the  Christian  revela 
tion  ?)  there  is  a  twofold  answer  ;  one  extrinsic, 
or  derived  from  outward  circumstances ;  one  in- 

§  74.  What  objection  is  there  to  this  explanation  ?  How  may 
it  be  answered  ?  What  analogy  is  furnished  by  the  Xew  Testament 
epistles  ? 

§  75.  "VThat  is  the  twofold  answer  to  the  third  question  ?  What 
is  the  extrinsic  reason  ? 


64  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE. 

trinsic,  or  arising  from  the  qualities  belonging  to 
the  language  itself.  The  extrinsic  reason  is,  be 
cause  at  the  time  of  the  Advent,  it  was  the  most 
widely  spoken  language  in  the  world,  and,  therefore, 
the  best  fitted  for  this  purpose,  irrespective  of  its 
character  and  structure.  The  intrinsic  reason  is, 
that  it  was  also  the  most  perfect  language  in  itself, 
and,  therefore,  doubly  suited  to  become  the  vehicle 
of  such  a  revelation,  especially  after  it  had  been  in 
use  for  ages  as  the  language  of  the  oldest  version  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  (See  below,  §  95.) 

§  76.  This  preparation  of  a  language  for  the 
Christian  revelation  must  not  be  regarded  as  for 
tuitous,  but  providential,  being  part  of  an  extensive 
preparation  for  the  advent  of  the  Saviour,  going  on 
for  ages  among  Jews  and  Gentiles.  This  has  some 
times  been  described  by  saying,  that  among  the 
Jews,  God  prepared  salvation  for  man  (compare 
John  4,  22),  and  among  the  Gentiles,  man  for  salva 
tion  ;  both  negatively,  by  experimentally  evincing 
the  futility  and  worthlessness  of  heathenism,  and 
exciting  the  desire  of  something  better,  and  posi- 

§  76.  How  is  this  connected  with  the  providential  preparation 
for  the  Advent ?  How  was  it  prepared  among  the  Jews?  How 
among  the  Gentiles?  What  was  the  negative  preparation  among 
the  Gentiles  ?  What  was  the  positive  prepai'ation  in  general  ? 
What  was  it  in  particular  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  65 

lively,  by  providing  vehicles  and  forms  for  the 
Christian  revelation.  The  negative  process  -here 
described,  may  be  distinctly  traced  in  the  history  of 
the  most  enlightened  heathen  nations,  and  espe 
cially  in  their  condition  at  or  just  before  the  birth  of 
Christ.  The  positive  consisted  partly  in  the  gen 
eral  intellectual  culture  of  the  Greeks  and  others 
whom  they  influenced ;  partly  in  the  gradual  ma 
turing  of  the  Greek  language  to  be  used  in  the 
New  Testament. 

§  77.  The  fourth  question  as  to  the  original  lan 
guage  (in  what  kind  of  Greek  is  the  New  Testa 
ment  written  ?)  presupposes  the  existence  of  more 
kinds  than  one,  or  in  other  words,  implies  that  the 
language  had  experienced  certain  changes,  or  ap 
peared  in  different  forms,  before  it  was  made  use  of 
for  this  purpose.  This  makes  it  necessary  to  con 
sider  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  language,  not 
in  minute  detail,  but  briefly,  both  for  want  of  time, 
and  because  this  part  of  the  subject  belongs  rather 
to  a  previous  stage  of  education,  in  which  not  only 
the  language  itself,  but  its  history  now  generally 
occupies  a  prominent  position.  All  that  is  neces 
sary,  therefore,  is,  a  brief  recapitulation  of  familiar 

§  77.  What  is  the  fourth  question  as  to  the  original  language  ? 
What  does  it  imply  or  presuppose  ?  What  does  this  require  to 
consider  first  ?  Why  may  and  must  it  be  considered  briefly  ? 


66  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

facts,  or  a  rapid  recollection  of  things  previously 
known. 

§  78.  In  doing  this  it  will  be  convenient  to 
begin  with  the  affinities  of  Greek  and  its  position 
in  the  family  of  languages  to  which  it  properly  be 
longs,  as  determined  by  Comparative  Philology. 
The  science  designated  by  this  phrase  is  one  en 
tirely  of  modern  origin,  having  sprung  up  chiefly 
within  half  a  century,  but  with  a  rapid  growth, 
which  has  brought  it  to  an  almost  instantaneous 
maturity.  One  of  its  marked  results  is  an  improve 
ment  in  the  scientific  treatment  of  the  several  lan 
guages  subjected  to  comparison,  arising  from  the 
light  which  they  mutually  throw  upon  each  other. 
Another  is  a  gratifying  confirmation  of  the  state 
ments  found  in  Scripture  as  to  the  original  oneness 
of  the  race,  and  of  its  language.  Though  all  ob 
scurities  are  not  yet  cleared  up,  this  is  the  acknowl 
edged  tendency  of  all  impartial  and  intelligent 
discussion  and  research,  not  only  in  Comparative 
Philology,  but  also  in  the  kindred  coeval  science  of 
Ethnology,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  Ethnog 
raphy.  The  way  in  which  Comparative  Philology 
contributes  to  this  end  is  by  showing  the  affinity  of 

§  78.  Where  is  it  most  convenient  to  begin  this  recapitulation  ? 
What  is  Comparative  Philology  ?  What  effect  has  it  had  upon  the 
study  of  particular  languages?  What  is  its  tendency  with  respect 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  67 

dialects  apparently  the  most  remote,  and  long  re 
garded,  even  by  the  learned,  as  wholly  and  hope 
lessly  heterogeneous.  This  again  is  brought  about 
by  exchanging  the  old  fanciful  and  superficial  ety 
mologies  founded  011  mere  fortuitous  resemblances 
of  shape  and  sound,  for  a  scientific  and  historical 
deduction,  governed  by  fixed  laws  of  permutation 
and  analogy,  and  often  leading  to  conclusions  ut 
terly  unlike  the  premises  or  data,  although  ren 
dered  certain  by  an  unbroken  series  of  intermediate 
steps  or  changes.  By  this  new  and  interesting 
process,  forms  of  speech,  the  most  dissimilar  at 
present,  may  be  traced  back  to  a  common  origin, 
and  thus  the  way  prepared  for  an  ultimate  removal 
of  the  only  serious  obstruction  to  the  identification 
of  all  known  varieties  of  language,  as  diverging 
streams  from  one  and  the  same  fountain. 

§  79.  Another  fruit  of  the  Comparative  Phi 
lology  of  modern  times,  is  the  division  of  all  culti 
vated  language  into  two  great  families  or  stocks, 
excluding  the  Chinese  and  its  derivatives,  though 
spoken  by  a  third  part  of  the  human  race,  as  hav- 

to  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  What  other  modern  science  coin 
cides  with  it  in  this?  How  docs  Comparative  Philology  promote 
this  end?  How  is  this  assimilation  brought  about?  What  may  be 
expected  from  the  further  prosecution  of  this  process  ? 

§  79.  To  how  many  families  may  cultivated  languages  be  now 


68  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

ing  really  no  structure,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
expression,  or  at  least  as  never  yet  successfully  sub 
jected  to  a  thorough  philological  analysis.  "With 
this  extensive  and  significant  exception,  all  the  cub 
tivated  languages  of  earth,  meaning  thereby  such 
as  have  been  written  long  enough  to  have  a  litera 
ture  of  their  own,  may  be  divided  into  two  great 
classes.  (I.)  The  Semitic  (or  Shemitish\  chiefly 
spoken  by  the  race  of  Shem,  but  also  called  the 
Syro-Ara'bian,  Hebraic,  and  by  several  other  names 
which  need  not  be  enumerated  here,  and  (II.)  the 
Japhetic,  chiefly  spoken  by  the  race  of  Japhet,  but 
more  generally  known  by  the  comprehensive  name 
of  Indo-European,  or  the  more  specific  one  of  Indo- 
Germanic,  which  at  once  suggests  its  vast  exten 
sion  from  the  Indian  to  the  German  Ocean,  com 
prehending  all  the  cultivated  dialects  of  Europe,  with 
several  belonging  to  the  south  and  west  of  Asia — the 
Sanscrit  and  its  numerous  derivatives — the  Celtic, 
Teutonic,  Scandinavian,  and  Slavonic  dialects, — 
and  intermediate  between  these  the  two  classic  lan 
guages  of  Greece  and  -Rome.  The  Semitic  family 
is  far  inferior,  both  in  superficial  measurement  and 


reduced?  What  is  excepted  from  this  classification,  and  why? 
What  is  meant  by  a  cultivated  language  ?  What  names  have  been 
given  to  the  first  of  these  great  families?  What  to  the  second? 
What  its  extent  ?  What  languages  does  it  include  ?  What  does 
the  other  family  include  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  69 

number  of  affiliated  languages,  themost  important  be 
ing  Hebrew,  Clialdee,  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Etliiopic. 

§  80.  Tlie  most  striking  features  of  the  Indo- 
European  stock,  by  which  it  is  distinguished  from 
the  other,  are,  first,  the  direction  of  the  writing 
from  the  left  hand  to  the  right ;  then,  the  indis 
criminate  use  of  consonants  and  vowels,  both  as 
alphabetic  characters  and  etymological  elements ; 
the  less  conspicuous  position  of  the  verb  among  the 
parts  of  speech,  or  rather  of  verbal  roots,  as  the 
origin  of  other  words  ;  the  absence  of  a  definite  and 
fixed  form  for  these  verbal  roots,  such  as  the  trilite- 
ral  [and  dissyllabic]  ;  the  exclusion  of  gender  from 
the  verb,  and  its  restriction  to  the  noun  and  pro 
noun  ;  the  greater  variety  of  temporal  and  modal 
forms;  the  disuse  of  prominal  suffixes;  and  an  almost 
unlimited  fertility,  boundless  liberty,  and  freedom 
in  all  other  kinds  of  composition.  It  is  to  the  last 
two  features — the  variety  of  verbal  and  of  com 
pound  forms — that  the  most  developed  and  ma 
tured  of  the  Indo-European  tongues  owe  the  flexi 
bility  and  richness  which  distinguish  them  above 
all  others. 


§  80.  What  arc  the  most  palpable  and  striking  points  of  differ 
ence  between  these  families  of  languages  ?  Which  of  these  pecu 
liarities  especially  contribute  to  flexibility  and  richness? 


TO  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATIJEE. 

§  81.  Among  the  errors  wliicli  have  been  ex 
ploded  by  Comparative  Philology  is  that  which 
long  prevailed  as  to  the  mutual  relation  of  the  two 
great  languages  of  classical  antiquity,  it  being  now 
held  by  the  highest  philological  authorities,  not 
only  that  the  Greek  is  not  the  mother  of  the  Latin, 
but  that  it  is  probably  not  even  an  elder  sister,  as  a 
living  writer,  of  great  eminence  in  this  department, 
argues  from  the  absence  of  the  article  in  Latin  and 
the  smaller  number  of  particles  denoting  the  rela 
tions  properly  expressed  by  cases,  both  which  pecu 
liarities  he  looks  upon  as  proofs  of  a  later  and  more 
complete  development  of  Greek,  as  we  now  have 
it.*  But  however  this  may  be,  the  two  are  now 
regarded  as  collateral  derivatives  from  a  common 
stock,  holding  a  central  geographical  position  in 
this  wide-spread  family  of  languages,  between  its 
north-western  and  south-eastern  limits,  as  well  as 
in  relation  to  their  structure,  being  almost  equi 
distant  from  the  superabundant  richness  of  the 
Sanscrit  stem,  and  the  comparative  mcagreness  of 
some  Teutonic  branches. 

*  Sec  Donaldson's  New  Cratylus,  2d  edition  (London,  1859). 

§  81.  What  ancient  error  has  Comparative  Philology  exploded? 
What  is  now  believed  to  be  the  true  relation  between  Greek  and 
Latin  ?  What  is  Donaldson's  argument  for  this  conclusion  ?  How 
much  may  be  considered  certain  ?  What  is  the  relative  position  of 
these  languages,  local  and  structural  ? 


XKW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  71 

§  82.  The  origin,  both  local  and  historical,  of 
these  important  languages  is  hidden  in  obscurity  ; 
nor  can  it  even  be  determined  whether,  or  how 
far,  they  had  a  common  basis  in  an  older  language 
ever  actually  spoken  both  in  Italy  and  Greece. 
The  two  great  elements  of  classic  Greek,  still  com 
monly  assumed,  are  scarcely  known  to  us  except 
by  name,  and  that  rather  as  an  immemorial  tradi 
tion  than  as  the  result  of  modern  philological  an 
alysis.  We  only  know,  and  only  in  this  way,  that 
the  basis  of  the  language  was  Pdasgic,  and  its 
later  adventitious  element  Hellenic  y  but  the  origin 
of  these  names,  with  the  local  habitation  of  the 
mother  tongue,  and  the  date  of  the  supposed  amal 
gamation,  are  still  subjects  of  conjecture  and  dis 
pute,  the  settlement  of  which  has  thus  far  baffled 
the  exertions  both  of  philological  and  ethnographi 
cal  research. 

§  83.  It  is  a  characteristic  circumstance  in 
Greek  and  Roman  history,  that  the  palmy  period 
of  the  latter  is  the  period  of  consolidation  under 
one  great  central  power,  whether  republican  or  im- 

§  82.  What  point  is  still  involved  in  doubt,  as  to  the  origin  of 
Greek  and  Latin  ?  What  is  still  assumed  as  to  the  elements  of 
Greek  ?  How  (and  how  far)  are  they  known  to  us  ?  How  far  are 
they  still  uncertain  ? 

§  83.  What  is  the  characteristic  difference  of  the  Greek  arid 


72  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

perial  in  form ;  whereas  that  of  the  former  is  the 
period  of  local  separation  into  petty  states,  either 
hostile  to  each  other,  or  at  most  united  in  a  loose 
confederation.  Whatever  ground  for  this  distinc 
tion  may  be  found  in  the  national  character  of 
these  two  races,  the  difference  certainly  exists,  not 
only  in  their  social  and  political  condition,  but 
even  in  their  language,  and  particularly  in  the  fact 
with  which  we  are  immediately  concerned,  that 
Greek,  as  far  back  as  we  now  can  trace  it  as  a  cul 
tivated  tongue,  existed,  not  as  one,  but  under  several 
provincial  forms,  called  Dialects. 

§  84.  The  origin  and  relative  antiquity  of  these 
old  dialects  is  so  obscure,  that  even  their  number  is 
a  variable  quantity,  some  writers  recognizing  more, 
some  fewer,  just  as  we  might  hesitate  or  differ  in 
determining  how  many  distinct  dialects  exist  among 
ourselves,  and  still  more  in  the  British  isles,  where 
such  diversities  are  far  more  numerous  and  marked. 
The  highest  philological  authorities,  however,  seem 
agreed  in  retaining  the  old  quadruple  division, 
only  discarding  what  the  earlier  writers  called  the 
Poetical  Dialect,  as  something  not  dependent  upon 

Boman  greatness  ?  How  far  does  it  extend  to  the  language  ?  In 
what  form  do  we  first  historically  know  the  language? 

§  84.  What  doubt  is  there  as  to  the  old  dialects  ?     What  one  is 
repudiated  by  the  modern  writers?    What  is  the  twofold  variation 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  73 

local  usage,  but  on  literary  fashion  and  prevailing 
taste.  Omitting  this,  we  may  assume,  in  strict  ac 
cordance  with  the  latest  philological  research,  as 
well  as  with  an  older  usage,  two  original  or  primary 
variations  in  the  language,  and  two  subsequent  or 
secondary,  probably  occasioned  by  extensive  and 
remote  migrations  of  the  Greek  or  Hellenic  race. 
The  first  two  are  the  Doric  and  Ionic,  one  distin 
guished  by  its  strength  and  harshness,  and  the 
other  by  its  softer  and  more  musical  pronunciation, 
arising  in  a  great  degree,  though  not  entirely,  from 
a  different  combination  and  proportion  of  the  con 
sonants  and  vowels.  After  the  settlement  of  Asia, 
in  the  proper  sense,  that  is,  the  western  provinces 
of  what  we  now  call  Asia  Minor,  by  Greek  colo 
nists,  each  of  these  ancient  dialects  received  a  colo 
nial  modification,  the  Asiatic  counterpart  of  the 
Doric  being  the  ^Eolic  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  name  Ionic,  like  its  parent  form  Ionia,  became 
fixed  in  Asia,  and  the  Grecian  branch  of  the  same 
great  dialect  was  called  the  Attic. 

§    85.    The    general  .difference    between    these 
Greek  and  Asiatic  dialects  was  the  same  as  that 

commonly  assumed?  How  are  they  related  to  each  other?  What 
were  the  two  primary  dialects?  What  was  their  characteristic  dif 
ference  ?  What  were  the  two  secondary  dialects  ? 

§  85.  How  did  they  differ  from  the  others?    Were  they  any 
4 


74  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 

between  the  tribes  who  used  them,  the  Ionian  and 
^Eolian  cultivation  tending  more  to  a  voluptuous 
softness,  the  Doric  and  the  Attic  to  a  masculine 
severity.  It  is  also  important  to  observe,  that 
these  provincial  dialects,  although  originally  noth 
ing  more  than  local  variations  of  the  spoken  lan 
guage,  became  afterwards  distinct  types  of  expres 
sion  and  of  composition,  which  were  more  or  less 
promiscuously  used,  without  regard  to  the  writer's 
residence  or  nationality,  as  specially  adapted  to  cer 
tain  styles  and  subjects.  Thus  the  Doric  dialect 
was  used  all  over  Greece  in  choral,  the  ^Eolic  in 
lyric,  the  Ionic  in  epic  composition  ;  while  the 
Attic,  though  distinguished  in  every  kind  of  lite 
rary  labor,  surpassed  all  the  rest  in  its  inimitable 
prose,  which,  in  the  writings  of  Thucydides,  Plato, 
and  the  Orators,  is  still  the  highest  model  of  com 
bined  strength  and  beauty,  the  most  exquisite  sim 
plicity,  and  the  purest  taste.  This  marked  supe 
riority  in  that  specific  form  of  composition,  which 
is  more  and  more  required  and  practised  as  civili 
zation  marches  onward,  was  at  once  the  cause  and 
the  effect  of  the  extraordinary  galaxy  of  genius  by 
which  Athens  is  immortalized.  In^ other  words,  it 
was  because  her  language  was  so  perfect,  that  so 

thing  more  than  local  variations  in  the  spoken  language?  How 
were  they  used  in  different  kinds  of  composition?  How  did  the 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  75 

many  of  her  writers  gained  celebrity  ;  and  yet,  it 
may  be  said  with  equal  truth,  it  was  because  her 
writers  were  so  highly  gifted,  that  the  Attic  dialect 
attained  the  highest  place  by  general  consent,  even 
while  the  states  of  Greece  still  remained  aloof  and 
independent  of  each  other. 

§  86.  The  first  great  change  from  this  condition, 
political  and  literary,  was  occasioned  by  the  Mace 
donian  ascendancy,  in  both  its  stages,  the  first 
under  Philip  of  Macedon,  the  second  under  his  still 
more  illustrious  son,  Alexander  the  Great.  Mace 
donia,  lying  on  the  northern  boundary  of  Greece, 
and  reckoned  as  belonging  to  it  in  the  widest  ap 
plication  of  the  name,  was  excluded  from  its  stricter 
definition,  and  its  people  treated  as  barbarians  by 
the  national  Hellenic  pride,  although  the  Greek 
descent  of  Philip  and  his  royal  predecessors  was 
conceded,  either  as  a  subtle  flattery,  or  in  extorted 
admiration  of  his  genius.  By  intrigue  and  influ 
ence,  as  much  as  by  mere  military  strength,  he 
gained  an  ascendancy  in  every  Grecian  state,  and 

Attic  dialect  surpass  the  rest  ?  Of  what  was  this  both  the  cause 
and  the  effect?  How  early  was  this  superiority  acknowledged? 

§  86.  What  caused  a  change  in  the  political  and  literary  state 
of  Greece?  What  was  the  first  stage  of  the  Macedonian  ascen 
dancy  ?  How  were  the  Macedonians  and  their  rulers  regarded 
by  the  Greeks?  How  did  Philip  of  Macedon  gain  his  ascendancy? 
What  was  its  social  and  political  efibct  ?  What  was  its  effect  upon 


76  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITER ATUJBE. 

was  finally  acknowledged  as  the  Protector  of  the 
whole,  tlms  uniting  the  proud  independent  races, 
for  the  first  time,  in  one  nation,  but  purchasing  this 
unity  at  the  expense  of  all  the  local  dignities  in 
which  they  gloried.  The  analogous  effect  upon  the 
language  was  to  fuse  its  local  variations  into  one 
Koivrj  StaXe/ero?,  of  which  the  Attic  was  the  basis, 
but  to  which  the  others  all  contributed  their  quota 
both  of  idioms  and  vocables.  The  conquests  of 
Alexander  carried  some  knowledge  of  this  common 
dialect  to  the  verge  of  India,  and  gave  it  permanent 
establishment  wherever  permanent  Greek  colonies 
were  founded,  and  especially  in  those  Greek  king 
doms  which  were  shared  among  the  Macedonian 
generals,  and  preserved  in  a  divided  form  the 
glories  of  that  empire  which  existed  undivided  only 
seven  years,  and  of  that  great  conqueror  who  had 
personally  no  successor. 

§  87.  Of  these  kingdoms,  the  most  splendid  on 
the  whole  was  that  of  Egypt,  where  the  Ptolemies 
succeeded  one  another,  as  the  Pharaohs  had  of  old. 
The  importance  of  this  new  state  was  enhanced  by 


the  language  ?  What  was  the  basis  of  the  KOIJ/?;  SiaXfKros  ?  What 
was  the  effect  of  Alexander's  conquests  ?  Where  was  the  Greek 
language  introduced  temporarily  and  permanently  ? 

§  87.  Which  was  the  most  important  of  these  Greek  kingdoms 
in  the  East,  and  why  ?    What  was  the  position  of  Alexandria  in  the 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  77 

that  of  the  commercial  mart  established  by  the  fore 
sight  and  sagacity  of  Alexander,  and  distinguished, 
under  his  own  name  of  Alexandria,  for  ages  as  a 
centre  not  only  of  commercial  but  of  intellectual 
activity.  As  usual  in  all  such  cases,  the  activity  of 
intercourse  in  trade,  aroused  and  stimulated  mental 
life  ;  the  confluence  from  all  parts  of  the  world  in 
creased  it ;  Alexandria  grew  famous  for  its  schools 
and  libraries,  among  which  was  the  greatest  of  the 
ancient  world.  Greek  philosophy  and  learning 
here  sought  patronage  or  refuge  from  the  decaying 
schools  of  Greece  itself.  It  was  in  Alexandria  that 
the  race  of  Greek  grammarians  had  its  origin, 
whose  soulless  but  invaluable  labours  first  subjected 
the  incomparable  language  to  a  microscopic  criti 
cism  and  minute  analysis.  These  causes,  in  addi 
tion  to  their  other  manifold  effects,  could  not  fail  to 
influence  the  language.  It  is  still  common  to  as 
sume  the  existence  both  of  a  Macedonian  and  an 
Alexandrian  dialect  ;  the  one  produced  by  the 
Macedonian  conquests,  both  in  Greece  and  Asia, 
the  other  by  the  Macedonian  reign  in  Egypt ;  though 
the  traces  of  the  former  consist  chiefly  of  a  few  de 
tached  words,  said  to  be  of  Macedonian  origin,  and 


ancient  world  ?  Ho\v  was  it  distinguished  in  a  literary  way  ?  What 
kind  of  learning  had  its  origin  and  seat  here  ?  What  effect  had 
this  upon  the  language  ?  What  was  the  Macedonian  dialect  ?  What 


78  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

the  latter  first  assumes  a  positive  and  independent 
character  when  afterwards  developed  as  the  Hel 
lenistic  dialect,  by  causes  and  in  ways  wThich  we 
must  now  describe  with  some  particularity. 

§  88.  The  next  point  to  be  considered  is  the 
providential  means  by  which  the  Jews  were  brought 
in  contact  with  the  changes  which  have  been  de 
scribed  as  flowing  from  the  Macedonian  conquests. 
The  Greek  kings  of  Egypt,  in  addition  to  their 
patronage  of  learning,  took  a  lively  interest  in  its 
inhabitants,  contending  with  the  Greek  kings  of 
Syria  for  the  sovereignty  of  that  diminutive  but 
most  important  state,  and  when  possessed  of  the 
ascendancy,  not  only  favouring  the  Jews  at  home, 
but  encouraging  their  emigration  into  Egypt,  where 
extensive  colonies  were  settled  under  the  first  Ptol 
emies,  and  a  large  proportion  of  the  population  of 
Alexandria  wras  composed  of  Jews.  This  brought 
them  into  contact  with  the  Greek  civilization,  and 
produced  a  mutual  action  and  reaction  between 
Judaism  and  Heathenism,  not  without  perceptible 
effects  upon  both  systems,  or  at  least  on  some  of 

was  the  Alexandrian  dialect  ?  In  what  form  was  it  afterwards  de 
veloped  ?  Plow  must  this  form  be  considered  ? 

§  88.  How  were  the  Jews  brought  into  contact  with  these 
changes?  Who  contended  for  the  sovereignty  of  Palestine?  What 
was  the  policy  of  the  Ptolemies  towards  the  Jews?  What  effect 
had  this  upon  Judaism  and  Heathenism  ?  What  was  the  origin  of 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  79 

their  adherents.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  Sad- 
ducees  or  lax  Jews,  who  inclined  to  assimilation 
with  the  cultivated  Gentiles,  in  opposition  to  the 
Pharisees  or  rigid  separatists  not  only  in  a  social 
but  a  national  sense.  It  also  gave  rise  to  that  class 
of  devout  Gentiles  whom  we  find  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  and  elsewhere,  treating  the  religion  of  the 
Jews  with  serious  respect,  without  in  every  case 
embracing  it.  Another  fruit  of  these  relations  was 
a  further  modification  of  the  language,  which,  had 
now  become  the  universal  medium  both  of  business 
and  of  literary  intercourse.  The  idiom  or  dialect 
which  thus  arose  is  called  the  Hellenistic. 

§  89.  According  to  the  national  tradition  of  the 
Greeks,  once  discredited  as  fabulous,  but  now  again 
received  as  the  best  authority  to  which  we  can  get 
access,  the  name  usually  given  to  the  whole  race  (i. 
e.  by  themselves)  was  derived  from  that  of  Hellen^ 
a  son  of  Deucalion  (the  Noah  of  the  classical  my 
thology)  who  built  a  town  in  Thessaly  to  which  he 
gave  the  name  of  Hellas,  afterwards  extended  to 
the  whole  surrounding  region,  also  called  Plitlii- 

the  Sadducccs  ?     What  was  that  of  the  devout  Gentiles?     What 
effect  had  this  upon  the  language  ? 

§  89.  Who  was  Hcllen  ?  What  was  the  primary  application  of 
the  name  Hellas?  What  were  its  secondary  applications?  How 
far  was  the  name  Ilellcn  extended? 


80  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE. 

otis,  or  the  country  of  the  Myrmidons ;  then  still 
further  to  the  whole  of  Upper  (or  Continental) 
Greece,  as  distinguished  from  the  Peloponnesus,  or 
to  Middle  Greece,  including  parts  of  Loth  ;  and 
finally  applied  to  all  countries  settled  by  the 
Greeks,  including  Asia  Minor  and  the  part  of  Italy 
called  Magna  Grsecia,  in  antithesis  to  which  the 
mother  country  was  sometimes  spoken  of  as  Old 
Greece  (17  ap^ata  e'XXa?).  By  a  similar  extension, 
the  name  of  the  reputed  founder  was  applied  to  his 
descendants,  both  in  the  singular  and  plural  form 
(e\\7jv  and  eXX??z/e9),*  with  the  corresponding  ad 
jective  (eXX^w/eo?,  comparative  eXhyviKwrepos)  and 
adverb  (eXX^w/eok),  applied  by  Herodotus  and  Xen- 
ophon  to  the  language,  especially  as  purely  spoken. 

§  90.  Another  derivative  of  "EXXrjv  was  the 
verb  e\\7)vl%co,  meaning  to  make  Greek  in  any 
sense,  as  Thucydides  applies  the  passive  to  a  lan 
guage  (eXKfrjvLvOrivat,  Trjv  7Xo>(7<7at),  then  to  be  Greek, 
or  to  imitate  the  Greeks,  in  manners,  institutions, 
sentiments,  but  specially  in  speech  or  language. 
The  word  was  even  used  of  native  Greeks  who  paid 
particular  attention  to  their  diction,  so  that  eXX?;- 

*  Hcsiod  uses  the  form  Traz/eAATji/es,  which  also  occurs  in  a  sus 
pected  reading  of  the  Iliad. 

§  90.  What  adjective  and  verb  come  from  "E\\r)v  ?    What  verb  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  81 

vi&iv  sometimes  means  to  speak  good  Greek.  But 
a  much  more  common  application  of  tlie  term  is  to 
foreigners  who  spoke  the  language,  whether  well  or 
ill.  This  imitation  of  the  Greek  or  assimilation  to 
them,  both  in  the  wider  and  the  stricter  sense,  was 
e\\rjvLo-fjL6s,  while  the  person  by  whom  it  was  prac 
tised  was  a  e\\Tjm(7T^.  This  word  also  had  its 
corresponding  adjective  and  adverb  (eAX^to-rt/co? 
and  eXX.TjwcrT/).'*  In  its  primary  and  wide  sense, 
therefore,  eX^ijvia-T^  denotes  any  foreigner  who  in 
any  way  followed  the  Greek  fashion,  but  especially 
who  used  the  language. 

§  01.  As  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  in  general, 
but  more  especially  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  used  the 
Greek  language  not  only  for  colloquial  but  religious 
purposes  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  they  acquired  a 
sort  of  twofold  claim  to  the  name  Hellenist  which 
in  usage  soon  became  appropriated  to  the  Greek — 
as  distinguished  from  the  Hebrew,  (or  the  Ara 
maic)  speaking  Jews.  This  specific  application  of 

*  See  John  19,  20;  Acts  21,  37,  where  it  simply  means  in 
Greek.  It  is  also  used  by  Xenophon  with  |uvteVot. 

How  is  it  used?  What  nouns?  What  secondary  adjective  and 
adverb  ? 

§  91.  Why  was  the  name  Hellenist  applied  particularly  to  the 
Jews  ?    What  was  the  opposite  of  Hellenist  ?      How  often   does 
Hellenist  occur  in  the  New  Testament  ?     What  does  it  evidently 
4* 


82  NEW   TESTAMENT    LITERATURE. 

the  term  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  certainly 
once,  probably  twice,  and  possibly  a  third  time. 
The  undisputed  case  is  Acts  6,  1,  where  a  jealousy 
is  said  to  have  arisen  in  the  infant  church  between 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Hellenists,  to  allay  which 
seven  deacons  were  appointed,  all  of  whom  have 
Greek  names.  Another  almost  equally  clear  in 
stance  is  Acts  9,  29,  where  Saul  is  said  after  his  con 
version  and  return  to  Jerusalem,  to  have  disputed 
with  the  Hellenists,  or  Greek-speaking  Jews,  to 
which  class  he  belonged  himself,  and  was  therefore 
qualified  to  carry  on  the  work,  though  he  escaped 
the  fate,  of  Stephen  the  first  martyr.  The  only 
doubt  in  this  case  has  respect  to  the  true  reading, 
which  according  to  some  copies  is  eXXyvas,  Greeks, 
i.  e.  natives  or  inhabitants  of  Greece,  although  the 
latest  critics  still  retain  the  common  reading  (eXXy- 
vio-rds).  A  much  greater  doubt  exists  as  to  the 
third  case,  Acts  11,  20,  where  the  external  evidence 
preponderates  in  favour  of  e\\7]VLa-rd^  and  the  in 
ternal  in  favour  of  eXX^z/a?.  In  all  these  instances, 
the  English  version  uses  the  form  Grecians  ,  to 
distinguish  these  Greek-speaking  Jews  from  Greeks 
,  which  last  form  frequently  occurs,  but  is 


mean  in  Acts  0,  1?  What  does  it  mean  in  Acts  9,  29?  What 
doubt  as  to  the  reading?  What  doubt  as  to  11,  20?  How  does 
the  English  version  distinguish  Hellenes  and  Hellenists  ?  How  is 
Hellenes  sometimes  rendered?  How  does  the  Peshito  paraphrase 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  83 

sometimes  rendered  Gentiles  (e.  g.  John  7,  35. 
Rom.  2,  0.  10.  3,  0.  1  Cor.  10,  32. 12,  13).  In  the 
second  of  the  places  above  quoted  (Acts  0,  29),  the 
Peshito  (or  old  Syriac  version)  paraphrases  eXX??- 
vicrTas  as  the  Jews  who  knew  Greek,  and  Chrysostom 
explains  it  as  denoting  rov9  eXX^i/to-rt  (f>6eyyofjLevov$). 
This  is  the  sense  in  which  I  shall  hereafter  use  the 
terms  "  Hellenist  "  and  "  Hellenistic." 

§  92.  It  follows  from  what  has  now  been  said, 
that  the  Hellenistic  dialect  or  idiom  is  that  form  of 
the  Greek  language  in  which  it  was  used  by  Jews, 
and  as  Alexandria  was  the  point  of  contact  between 
Greek  and  Jewish  learning,  this  dialect  is  com 
monly  regarded  as  a  modification  of  the  Alexan 
drian  before  described,  arising  from  a  greater  or 
less  mixture  or  infusion  of  a  Hebrew  element, 
whether  derived  from  the  vernacular  of  Palestine, 
or  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  precise  extent 
to  which  and  way  in  which  this  Hebraic  or  Judaic 
modification  of  the  Greek  tongue  took  place  is  dis 
puted,  and  will  present  itself  again  hereafter,  for  a 
more  deliberate  consideration. 

Acts  9,  29?  How  does  Chrysostom  expound  it?  How  will  Hel 
lenist  and  Hellenistic  be  applied  hereafter? 

§  92.  What  is  meant  by  the  Hellenistic  dialect  or  idiom  ?  How 
did  it  differ  from  the  other  dialects  ?  How  was  the  Hebrew  modifi 
cation  brought  about  ? 


84  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

§  93.  Had  tins  dialect  or  idiom  been  merely 
oral,  it  would  long  since  have  shared  the  oblivion 
of  their  national  or  local  variations  in  a  spoken  lan 
guage.  But  what  gives  it  interest  and  value  now. 
is  the  fact  that  books  were  written  in  it,  for  a 
course  of  ages,  and  among  them  books  of  the  high 
est  importance.  The  aggregate  of  these  books  con 
stitutes  objectively,  as  the  knowledge  of  them  does 
subjectively,  what  is  called  "Hellenistic  Litera 
ture,"  a  branch  of  learning  now  distinctly  recog 
nized  in  our  curriculum,  and  formally  assigned  to 
my  department.  It  may  be  reduced  to  two  great 
heads  or  classes,  the  Biblical  and  Non-  (or  rather 
Extra-)  Biblical.  A  still  more  convenient  distribu 
tion  for  our  purpose,  is  the  chronological  division 
into  periods  or  successive  phases  of  this  Hellenistic 
literature,  as  it  still  exists  and  may  be  traced  in 
history. 

§  94.  1.  The  first  of  these  forms  is  the  Septua- 
gint  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  anterior  in  date, 
by  several  centuries,  to  any  other,  and  to  which,  as 
we  shall  see  below,  the  Hellenistic  dialect  owes  its 
distinctive  character,  if  not  its  existence.  2.  At- 


§  93.  What  gives  permanent  importance  to  tins  dialect  ?  What 
is  meant  by  "  Hellenistic  Literature  "?  To  what  two  heads  may  it 
be  reduced?  How  may  it  be  chronologically  divided? 

§  94.  What  is  the  first  form  or  primary  depository  of  Hellenistic 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  85 

tached  to  the  Septuagint  version  in  most  copies, 
whether  manuscript  or  printed,  are  a  number  of 
writings,  not  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  but  orig 
inally  written  in  the  Hellenistic  dialect,  and  tech 
nically  known  as  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha. 
3.  The  third  place  in  this  chronological  series  of 
Hellenistic  writings  belongs  to  the  New  Testament 
itself.  4.  Nearly  contemporary,  but  a  little  later, 
and  forming  a  distinct  class  by  themselves,  are  the 
Jewish  writers,  Philo  and  Josephus.  5.  Belonging 
to  the  same  age,  but  of  Christian  origin,  though  un 
inspired,  are  the  writings  known  in  history  as  those 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  on  the  verge  of  the  first 
and  second  centuries.  6.  "Within  the  first  half  of 
the  latter  period  fall  such  of  the  New  Testament 
Apocrypha  as  were  originally  written  in  Greek, 
and  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  latest  samples  of 
the  ancient  Hellenistic  dialect,  although  it  likewise 
forms  the  basis  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Greek,  or  that 
of  the  ancient  Fathers  after  the  Apostolical,  and 
that  of  the  mediaeval  or  Byzantine  idiom,  and  more 
remotely  of  the  Romaic  dialect  now  actually  spoken 
and  generally  known  as  modern  Greek.  But  these 
three  latest  forms  of  the  Greek  language  lie  beyond 
the  limits  of  our  present  course,  and  will  therefore 

Literature  ?     What  is  the  second  ?     What  is  the  third  ?    What  is 
the  fourth  ?     What  is  the  fifth  ?     What  is  the  sixth  ? 


86  NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 

be  excluded  from  the  rapid  view  which  I  propose 
to  give  you  of  the  other  six. 

§  95.  The  oldest  extant  specimen  or  sample  of 
the  Hellenistic  dialect  and  literature  is  the  Septua- 
gint  version — by  far  the  oldest  biblical  translation 
in  existence — so  old  as  to  be  in  some  sense  an  origi 
nal.  Septuagint  is  a  slight  abbreviation  of  the 
Latin  Septuacjinta,  meaning  seventy — corresponding 
to  the  Greek  efiSoprj/covra — and  often  represented 
by  the  .Roman  numerals  LXX.  Of  this  ancient 
title  there  are  two  explanations,  both  of  which 
agree  in  making  seventy  a  round  number  for  seven 
ty-two,  but  one  of  which  refers  it  to  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrim,  either  in  Palestine  or  Egypt,  by  which 
the  version  is  supposed  to  have  been  sanctioned ; 
while  the  other  and  more  common  one  explains  it 
as  the  number  of  translators,  handed  down  by  an 
old  tradition.  This  tradition  exists  in  several  dif 
ferent  forms,  the  latter  being  generally  more  em 
bellished  than  the  older.  From  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century  to  the  close  of  the  seventeenth,  there 
was  a  general  acquiescence  in  the  tale  as  told  by 
Epiphranius,  a  learned  and  orthodox,  but  credulous 

§  95.  What  is  the  oldest  specimen  of  the  Hellenistic  dialect  and 
literature  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  name  Septuagint,  and 
what  are  its  equivalents?  How  many  explanations  are  there  of 
this  name?  What  is  the  one  usually  given ?  How  is  the  tradition 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  87 

and  injudicious  Father,  who  describes  this  version 
as  the  work  of  seventy-two  men,  who  were  shut  up 
by  pairs  in  six-and- thirty  cells,  and  each  translated 
all  the  books  without  the  slightest  variation.  Two 
hundred  years  earlier  Justin  Martyr  gives  the  same 
account,  but  varies  it  by  mentioning  as  many  cells 
as  there  were  writers.  Both  these  accounts  imply 
that  the  translation  was  inspired,  a  fact  explicitly 
affirmed  by  Philo,  who  says  that  being  filled  with 
God  (or  having  God  within),  they  prophesied  (or 
spoke  by  inspiration).* 

§  9G.  The  contemporary  Jewish  historian,  Jose- 
phus,  makes  no  mention  of  this  circumstance,  nor 
of  the  preternatural  agreement  of  the  versions,  but 
gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Septu- 
agint,  with  accompanying-  documents.  These  are 
all  derived  how'ever  from  another  source,  still  ex 
tant,  an  epistle  to  Philocrates,  purporting  to  be 
written  by  Aristeas,  a  courtier  and  friend  of  Ptol 
emy  Philadelphus — and  relating  that  Demetrius 
Phalereus,  the  librarian  of  that  monarch,  advised 

*  (vOov<ria>i/Tfs  irpoeQriTevov.     Philo  de  Vit.  Mos. 

given  by  Epiphanius?  How  is  it  given  by  Justin  Martyr?  "What 
is  Philo's  statement? 

§  96.  How  does  Josephus  tell  the  story  ?  Upon  whose  author 
ity  ?  Who  was  Aristeas  ?  What  is  his  account  ?  Who  advised  the 
translation  ?  What  did  Aristeas  himself  advise  ?  What  did  the  king 


88  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITEKATUKE. 

him  to  complete  his  collection  of  the  laws  of  various 
nations,  "by  adding  those  of  Moses,  or  the  Jews,  and 
as  these  were  written  in  an  unknown  character  and 
language,  counselled  him  to  send  for  an  authentic 
copy,  and  for  competent  translators  from  the  Holy 
Land  itself.*  He  accordingly  sent  two  ambassa 
dors,  of  whom  Aristeas  was  one,  and  Andreas,  the 
captain  of  his  guard,  the  other.  These  went  to 
Jerusalem,  with  letters  and  presents  to  the  High 
Priest,  who  sent  them  back  with  a  copy  of  the  law 
written  on  parchment  in  letters  of  gold,  and  accom 
panied  by  six  elders  from  each  tribe,  well  ac 
quainted  with  both  languages.  After  being  hos 
pitably  entertained  for  several  days  at  court,  they 
were  conducted  by  Demetrius  to  an  island,  sup 
posed  to  be  that  of  Pharos,  in  the  harbor  of  Alex 
andria,  where  they  executed  their  task,  not  singly 
or  in  pairs,  but  jointly ;  the  translation  of  each 
portion,  when  agreed  upon,  being  written  down  in 
Greek  by  Demetrius  himself.  "When  their  task 

*  Aristeas  himself  advised  him  to  conciliate  the  Jews  by  ran 
soming  the  (100,000)  Jewish  slaves  in  Egypt,  which  he  did,  by  pay 
ing  20  (Josephus  says  120)  drachms  for  each  to  the  soldiers  who 
owned  them. 

do?  Who  were  the  ambassadors?  What  did  they  take  with  them  ? 
What  did  they  bring  back  ?  How  were  the  seventy  received  and 
treated?  Where  did  they  perform  their  task?  Who  was  their 
amanuensis  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE.  89 

was   accomplished,   they  were  sent  home  loaded 
with  gifts  and  honours. 

§  97.  There  are  some  discrepancies  in  this  ac 
count — c.  g.  as  to  the  power  by  which  the  Jews 
had  been  enslaved,  whether  Persian  or  Macedonian 
— which,  taken  in  connection  with  the  obvious  at 
tempt  to  play  the  Greek,  while  all  the  style  and 
sentiments  are  Jewish,  have  led  the  modern  critics 
first  to  suspect  and  then  to  condemn  this  writing 
as  a  forgery — prompted  by  a  wish  to  give  ecclesi 
astical  authority  to  a  translation  which  might  other 
wise  have  seemed  suspicious  to  the  stricter  Jews,  as 
having  been  made  in  a  foreign  country,  and  under 
the  auspices  of  a  heathen  king.  This  sceptical 
criticism  has  perhaps  been  pushed  too  far,  as  there 
is  nothing  intrinsically  improbable  in  the  story  it 
self,  which  is  certainly  older  than  Joseplms,  whether 
written  by  Aristeas  or  not.  That  the  version  is  of 
Egyptian  origin,  there  is  internal  evidence ;  and  al 
though  it  was  certainly  in  general  use  among  the 
Jews  there,  this  is  not  at  variance  with  the  fact  of 
its  having  been  prepared  originally  under  the  direc- 

§  97.  What  suspicious  circumstances  are  there  in  this  narrative  ? 
How  is  it  regarded  by  the  modern  critics?  "What  motive  is  imputed 
to  the  forgery  ?  In  what  respect  have  the  critics  gone  too  far  ? 
What  part  of  the  story  is  entirely  credible  ?  What  different  pur 
poses  may  this  version  have  accomplished?  What  is  the  oldest 


90  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUKE. 

tion  of  the  king,  and  for  a  political  or  literary, 
rather  than  a  religions,  purpose.  The  oldest  undis 
puted  testimony  on  the  subject  is  that  of  Aristobu- 
lus,  a  Jewish  Aristotelian  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy 
Philometor,  some  fragments  of  whose  writings  are 
preserved  in  those  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Eu- 
sebius  the  historian,  in  which  he  says  that  the  whole 
of  the  law  was  first  translated  into  Greek  under  Ptol 
emy  Philadelphia,*  which  may  therefore  be  con 
sidered  an  established  fact,  and  the  germ  of  all  the 
subsequent  embellishments. 

§  98.  The  use  of  the  ambiguous  term  law  in 
these  accounts,  has  raised  the  question  whether  it 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  wide  sense  as  denoting  the  Old 
Testament,  or  in  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  the 
Pentateuch,  or  books  of  Moses.  Josephus  says  ex 
pressly  f  that  the  latter  only  were  translated  by 
the  seventy  ;  £  but  in  the  prologue  to  Ecclesiasti- 


*  'H  5e  oA.77  fp/jLTjveia  ruv  Sta  TOU  v6jj.ov  ir&vT&v. 
f  Ant.  Prol.  §  3. 

\  "Et  Aristeas  et  Josephus  et  omnis  schola  Judseorum  quinque 
tantum  libros  Moysis  a  Ixx.  translates  asserunt."  Ilicron.  in  Ezech.  v. 

undisputed  testimony  on  the  subject?  Where  is  it  preserved? 
What  does  it  amount  to?  What  may  be  considered  certain,  both 
from  external  and  internal  evidence  ? 

§  98.  What  question  as  to  the  extent  of  the  translation?    What 
Is  the  Jewish  tradition  as  recorded  by  Jerome  ?     What  is  the  testi- 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  91 

cus,*  the  writer  speaks  of  the  law,  the  prophecies, 
and  the  other  Scriptures,  as  existing  in  both  lan 
guages.  From  this  it  is  now  commonly  inferred, 
that  the  version  was  gradually  made,  having  been 
begun  under  Ptolemy  Philadelphia  (or  his  father), 
and  completed  by  the  38th  year  of  Ptolemy  Phys- 
con,  (B.  C.  132).  f 

§  00.  That  the  version  is  the  work  of  different 
hands,  if  not  of  different  ages,  is  now  very  com 
monly  agreed  to  be  established  by  a  marked  diver 
sity,  not  only  of  mere  style  and  diction,  but  of 
ability  and  skill  and  knowledge,  both  of  Greek 
and  Hebrew.  The  most  valuable  portion  is  the 
Pentateuch,  not  only  as  the  oldest,  but  because  the 
Egyptian  authors  or  translators  were  particularly 


f  323  Ptolemy  Soter  (Lagi). 
285  Ptolemy  Philadelphia. 
247  Ptolemy  Euergetes. 
222  Ptolemy  Philopator. 
205  Ptolemy  Epiphanes. 
181  Ptolemy  Philometor. 
170  Ptolemy  Physcou. 
117  Ptolemy  (Soter)  and  Cleopatra. 


mony  of  the  son  of  Sirach?     What  inference  is  usually  drawn  from 
it? 

§  99.  How  does  the  plurality  of  authors  appear?     Which  is  the 
most  valuable  part,  and  why?     Which  part  of  the  Pentateuch  is 


92  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

qualified  for  that  part  of  tlie  task.  In  the  Penta 
teuch  itself  some  distinguish  as  the  best  part  the 
book  of  Leviticus,  and  in  the  rest  the  book  of 
Proverbs,  while  the  lowest  place  is  unanimously 
given  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  which  is  so  defective 
or  absurd,  that  another  version  (that  of  Theoclo- 
tion)  was  early  substituted  for  it  in  the  copies  of  the 
Septuagint  version. 

§  100.  At  a  very  early  period,  perhaps  soon 
after  it  appeared,  this  version  became  current 
among  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  not  only  in  Egypt, 
but  in  other  countries,  and,  according  to  tradition, 
in  the  Holy  Land  itself.  It  was  even  introduced 
into  the  Synagogues,  but  probably  not  to  the  exclu 
sion  of  the  Hebrew  text,  which  is  still  used  by  the 
Jews  throughout  the  world  in  worship,  though  ac 
companied  by  vernacular  translations  for  the  bene 
fit  of  those  who  are  ignorant  of  Hebrew.  A  sim 
ilar  purpose  was  answered  by  the  Septuagint  in 
ancient  times,  when  Greek  was  the  language  of  the 
civilized  world.  It  thus  obtained  extensive  circu 
lation,  perhaps  even  among  Gentiles,  and  was  highly 


best  done  ?     Which  is  the  best  of  the  other  books?     Which  is  the 
worst  ? 

§  100.  How  was  the  LXX.  regarded  by  the  Jews  before  the  ad 
vent?  How  extensive  was  its  use?  Why  did  it  not  exclude  the 
Hebrew  text  ?  What  changed  the  feeling  of  the  Jews  respecting 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  93 

valued  by  the  Jews  themselves,  until  the  virulence 
of  anti-Christian  controversy  led  them  to  denounce 
it  as  an  inexact  translation,  and  fall  back  upon  the 
Hebrew  original,  or  on  more  accurate  Greek  ver 
sions,  many  of  which  sprang  into  existence  in  the 
iirst  and  second  centuries  of  the  Christian  era. 
Three  of  these  are  known  to  us  by  name,  those  of 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotian,  and  three 
others,  which  are  nameless,  but  distinguished  as  the 
Fifth,  Sixth,  and  Seventh,  in  the  great  work  of  Ori- 
gen,  the  history  of  which,  as  well  as  of  these  ver 
sions,  as  such  considered,  belongs  to  Old  Testament 
Literature.  All  that  need  be  stated  here  is  that  all 
these  versions  have  been  lost,  and  now  exist  in 
fragments  only,  with  the  exception  of  the  oldest, 
which  has  been  preserved  from  the  same  fate  by  its 
ecclesiastical  employment,  first  in  the  Synagogue 
and  then  in  the  Greek  or  Oriental  Church,  where  it 
still  maintains  its  ground,  along  with  the  original 
New  Testament,  and  is  the  only  one  of  these  Greek 
versions  which  demands  attention  in  the  present 
course. 

§  101.  The  violent  revulsion  in  the  feelings  of 
the  Jews  with  respect  to  this  time-honoured  version 


it  ?  What  did  they  use  instead  of  it  ?  How  many  other  Greek 
versions  are  known  to  have  existed?  Why  were  they  not  pre 
served  ? 


94:  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

may  be  gathered  from  trie  foolisli  and  extravagant 
expressions  of  the  Talmud,  e.  g.  that  darkness  over 
spread  the  earth  when  it  was  finished,  and  that  the 
sin  of  making  it  was  equal  to  the  sin  of  making  the 
golden  calf.  A  like  depreciation,  though  from 
other  motives,  and  expressed  in  other  forms,  has 
resulted  in  our  own  day  by  reaction  from  the  oppo 
site  extreme  of  idolatrous  attachment  which  pre 
vailed  throughout  the  Christian  world  for  ages,  an 
extreme  which  still  exists,  though  now  compara 
tively  rare. 

§  102.  As  a  specimen  of  these  extreme  views 
may  be  cited  the  position  occupied  by  Grinfield, 
one  of  the  most  learned  Hellenistic  scholars  of  the 
day,  in  his  "  Apology  for  the  Septuagint "  (London, 
1850),  namely,  that  the  Septuagint  version  is  in 
spired  and  precisely  equal  in  canonical  authority  to 
the  Hebrew  text,  or  rather  superior  to  it,  on  ac 
count  of  its  affinity  to  the  New  Testament,  arising 
from  community  of  language,  dialect,  and  diction, 
and  from  its  being  directly  quoted  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  itself.  If  such  a  theory  could  be  estab 
lished,  it  would  revolutionize  the  whole  w^ork  of 
criticism  and  interpretation  by  requiring  them  to 

§  101.  What  extravagant  expressions  are  used  in  the  Talmud? 
What  extreme  opinions  have  existed  since? 
§  102.  What  is  Grinfield's  doctrine  ? 


NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  95 

recognize  a  version  and  original  alike  and  equally 
infallible,  but  in  a  multitude  of  cases  quite  irrecon 
cilable. 

§  103.  The  arguments  by  which  it  is  attempted 
to  establish  this  extraordinary  doctrine  are  in  sub 
stance  these :  1.  The  antecedent  probability  that 
with  the  change  of  dispensations  from  a  local  to  an 
universal  church,  there  would  be  a  corresponding 
change  in  the  language  even  of  the  older  revela 
tion,  to  adapt  it  to  a  new  and  more  extensive  use. 
2.  The  fact  that  the  New  Testament  was  written  in 
the  very  language  of  this  ancient  version,  not  only 
in  Greek,  but  in  the  very  kind  of  Greek,  of  which 
it  furnishes  the  oldest  sample.-"  3.  The  derivation 
of  the  New  Testament  terminology  from  this  source.f 
4.  The  actual  quotation  from  it,  even  when  it  dif 
fers  from  the  Hebrew.;):  5.  The  fact  (alleged  with 
out  proof)  that  our  Saviour  himself  used  this  ver 
sion  from  his  childhood.  6.  The  fact  (also  asserted 
without  proof)  that  German  and  American  neology 
is  owing  to  the  neglect  of  Hellenistic  learning,  and 
exclusive  study  of  the  Hebrew  Sciptures. 

§  104.  In  answer  to  these  arguments  it  may  be 

*  Sec  below,  §  109.      f  See  below,  §  110.      J  See  below,  §  108. 
§  103.  How  is  it  supported? 


96  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE. 

stated  first,  that  they  either  prove  too  little  or  too 
much,  i.  e.  either  that  an  uninspired  version  was 
sufficient  for  all  necessary  purposes,  or  else  that  the 
Hebrew  text  is  wholly  useless,  being  superseded  by 
a  version  equally  inspired,  and  therefore  really  a 
new  revelation,  as  maintained  in  theory  by  several 
of  the  Fathers,  and  in  practice  by  the  Greek 
Church  to  the  present  day.  In  the  next  place,  the 
original  and  version  cannot  be  equally  inspired,  be 
cause  if  they  were  they  would  agree,  and  if  it  be 
alleged  that  either  is  corrupt,  which  is  it,  and  why 
should  it  have  been  suffered  to  become  so  ?  All 
the  arguments  employed  to  prove  the  point  go  to 
show  that  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
either  sufficient  or  superfluous.  It  would  be  far 
easier  to  maintain,  with  some  degree  of  plausibility, 
this  last  alternative,  viz.,  that  the  Septuagint  is  not 
a  version,  but  a  new  original,  designed  to  super 
sede  the  old  forever. 

§  105.  Between  these  hurtful  and  extravagant 
extremes,  there  is  a  golden  mean  in  which  the 
learned,  after  many  oscillations  of  opinion,  have 
been  gradually  settling,  a  position  equally  removed 
from  the  error  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  who  re- 


§  104.  How  may  these  arguments  be  answered  ? 

§  105.  What  is  the  true  mean  between  these  opposite  extremes? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  97 

garded  the  Septuagint  version  as  a  second  revela 
tion,  by  which  the  first  had  been  legitimately  su 
perseded,  and  from  that  of  the  contemporary  Jews, 
who,  not  content  with  rejecting  its  unauthorized 
pretensions  to  take  precedence  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
repudiated  and  denounced  it  as  an  impious  abomi 
nation.  This  conclusion  naturally  prompts  the 
question,  how  shall  it  be  reduced  to  practice  ? — or, 
what  is  the  use  to  be  legitimately  made  of  the  Sep 
tuagint  version  ? 

§  10G.  The  legitimate  use  of  the  Septuagint  is 
twofold,  in  relation  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
This  is  not  a  mere  conventional  distinction,  but  a 
radical  and  total  difference,  to  show  which  it  may 
be  observed  still  more  particularly,  that  the  Old 
Testament  use  of  this  version  is  itself  also  twofold. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  an  important  aid  in  deter 
mining  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  [though  often 
misapplied  in  this  way],  by  showing  how  these  old 
translators  read  it.  In  the  next  place,  it  affords 
assistance  in  determining  the  sense,  by  showing 
how  these  old  translators  understood  it.  In  other 
words,  it  is,  when  properly  employed,  a  help  both 
in  Criticism  and  Interpretation. 

§  106.  What  is  the  twofold  use  of  the  Septuagint  ?    What  is  its 
twofold  Old  Testament  use? 


98  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

§  10T.  Now  both  these  uses  of  the  Septnagint 
version — namely,  the  Critical  and  Exegetical — are 
wholly  inapplicable  to  the  New  Testament,  which 
came  into  existence  afterwards,  and  with  whose 
text  and  meaning  this  old  version  can  have  no  con 
nection  except  indirectly,  in  a  way  wholly  different 
from  that  in  which  it  may  be  made  to  bear  upon 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  But,  although  not  in  the 
same  sense  or  the  same  form,  the  Septnagint  ver 
sion  is  of  no  less  value,  possibly  of  greater,  to  the 
student  of  the  New  than  of  the 'Old  Testament — 
and  that  in  reference  to  three  particulars  which  we 
shall  specify. 

§  108.  In  the  first  place,  the  New  Testament 
abounds  in  quotations  from  the  Old,  which  are 
sometimes  of  the  most  important  kind,  such  as 
prophecies  fulfilled,  or  historical  events  explained, 
or  general  truths  enforced  by  authoritative  repeti 
tion.  These  quotations,  which  occupy  a  larger 
space  than  careless  readers  may  imagine,  are  some 
times  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew  by  original 
translation,  but  more  frequently  borrowed  from  the 
Septuagint  version,  as  the  one  in  common  use,  with 

§  107.  Why  are  these  uses  inapplicable  to  the  New  Testament? 
How  many  uses  has  it  with  respect  to  the  Xew  Testament  ? 
§  108.  What  is  its  use  with  respect  to  the  quotations? 


NEW    TESTAMENT    LITERATURE.  99 

or  without  modification.  This  brings  that  version 
into  close  connection  with  the  Christian  revelation, 
as  the  source  of  some  of  its  most  striking  passages. 

§  109.  But  in  addition  to  direct  quotation,  for 
mal  transfer  of  whole  sentences  or  phrases  from  one 
part  of  Scripture  to  the  other,  there  is  a  less  promi 
nent,  but  still  more  intimate,  relation  of  the  two, 
arising  from  community  of  language  and  identity 
of  dialect.  The  basis  of  the  Christian  or  New  Tes 
tament  idiom  lies  in  the  Septuagint  version,  and 
can  never  be  elucidated  fully  without  reference  to 
it.  In  other  words,  it  was  the  same  peculiar  form 
of  Greek,  which  had  its  origin,  or  has  its  oldest  ex 
tant  exhibition,  in  this  ancient  version,  that  was 
afterwards  adopted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the 
vehicle  or  costume  of  the  new  revelation. 

§  110.  Lastly,  although  really  included  in  the 
previous  specification,  it  may  be  distinctly  stated,  on 
account  of  its  important  bearing  both  on  interpreta 
tion  and  theology,  that  a  large  part  of  the  religions 
terminology  or  phraseology  which  characterises  the 
New  Testament  is  really  of  older  date,  and  may  be 
traced  to  this  old  version  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 

§  109.  What  is  its  philological  relation  to  the  New  Testament? 
§  110.  What  is  it3  technical  use?      How  may  this  use  be  ex 
emplified? 


100  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

which  had  made  many  of  these  terms  familiar  to 
the  Jews,  long  before  they  were  incorporated  into 
the  language  of  the  new  or  Christian  revelation. 
As  marked  examples,  serving  to  verify  this  general 
statement,  may  be  mentioned  the  important  terms, 


§  111.  These  important  uses  of  the  Septuagint 
version  with  respect  to  the  New  Testament,  to 
gether  with  its  value  as  the  oldest  form  of  Hellen 
istic  composition,  entitle  it  not  only  to  a  place  in 
such  a  course  as  this,  but  to  more  assiduous  atten 
tion  as  a  part  of  ministerial  training  than  it  com 
monly  receives.  The  best  mode  of  supplying  this 
deficiency,  would  be  by  connecting  the  study  of  the 
Septuagint  version  with  the  thorough  philological 
analysis  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  so  as  to  compare  the 
two  by  one  simultaneous  (or  immediately  succes 
sive)  process,  an  addition  to  our  present  theological 
curriculum  devoutly  to  be  wished. 

§  112.  The  grammatical  study  of  the  Septuagint 
version  is  facilitated  now  by  cheap  and  accurate 
editions  of  the  text  (such  as  those  of  Tischendorf, 
Yan  Ess,  and  Yalpy),  and  by  the  reference  to  Sep 
tuagint  usage  in  the  best  Greek  lexicons  in  common 

§  111.  What  is  the  best  mode  of  studying  the  Septuagint? 
§  112.  What  are  the  best  helps  for  such  a  study  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  101 

use,  both  general  and  special  (such  as  Liddell  & 
Scott's,  Kobinson's,  &c.)  ;  while  the  means  of  more 
specific  and  minute  investigation  are  afforded  by 
the  older  works  of  Schlcusner,  Trommius,  and 
others.  [An  effort  to  promote  this  study,  on  the 
plan  above  suggested,  will  be  made,  if  practicable, 
in  connection  with  the  present  course.] 

§  113.  Next  to  the  Septuagint  or  old  Greek 
version  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  stands,  in  point 
of  age  and  philological  importance,  as  a  source  of 
illustration  to  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
well  as  a  distinguishable  form  or  phrase  of  Hel 
lenistic  Literature,  a  series  or  collection  of  an 
cient  writings,  known  as  the  Old  Testament  Apoc 
rypha*  The  argument  against  the  canonicity  of 
these  books,  belongs  entirely  to  Old  Testament 
Literature,  or  Introduction,  and  will  be  treated 
under  that  head,  with  as  much  particularity  as  cir 
cumstances  may  allow.  In  the  meantime  it  may  be  as 
sumed,  as  the  conclusion  of  that  argument,  that  all  the 
books  in  question  were  uncanonical  and  uninspired. 

§  114:.  But  though  entirely  without  authority  or 

*  See  §  47. 

§  113.  What  is  the  second  group  of  writings  belonging  to  the 
Hellenistic  Literature  ?  What  part  of  the  subject  must  be  here 
omitted  as  belonging  elsewhere?  What  will  be  assumed  ad  interim  ? 


102  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

use,  as  belonging  to  the  Rule  of  Faith,  these  writ 
ings  are  entitled  to  attention  from  their  great  an 
tiquity,  their  Jewish  origin,  and  their  Greek  (or 
rather  Hellenistic)  dress.  The  salutary  prejudice 
among  most  Protestants  against  them,  as  unjustly 
claiming  or  assigned  a  place  in  the  inspired  canon, 
should  not  be  pushed  so  far  as  to  prevent  our  mak 
ing  a  legitimate  and  profitable  use  of  them,  as 
curious  and  ancient  compositions,  which  contain 
some  false  doctrines,  more  false  facts,  and  still  more 
of  false  taste,  but  are,  nevertheless,  interesting ; 
first,  as  sources  or  materials  of  history ;  then,  as 
illustrative  of  Jewish  manners  and  opinions  in  the 
interval  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  and 
3dly,  as  throwing  light  upon  the  language  of  the 
latter ;  which  last  is  the  only  reason  for  assigning 
them  a  place  in  any  systematic  course,  however 
meagre  and  imperfect,  of  New  Testament  Philology. 

§  115.  The  fact  just  stated  will  require  us  to  de 
fine  with  more  precision  the  class  of  writings  here 
referred  to,  some  of  which,  if  taken  in  the  widest 
sense  of  the  generic  or  collective  term  (Old  Testa- 

§  114.  "Why  arc  these  books  entitled  to  attention?  What  ex 
treme  or  prejudice  is  to  be  avoided  ?  What  are  the  three  uses  to 
be  made  of  these  books?  What  especially  connects  them  with 
our  present  subject? 

§  115.  Which  of  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  have  no  such 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  103 

mcnt  Apocrypha),  have  no  connection  with  our 
present  subject,  such  as  the  4th  book  of  Esdras, 
and  the  5th  book  of  Maccabees  (so  called),  which 
are  not  now  known  to  exist  in  Greek  at  all,  what 
ever  may  have  been  their  original  language.  Of 
the  much  larger  number  which  remain,  some  are 
certainly  or  probably  mere  Greek  translations  of 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic  originals ;  but  this  does  not 
impair  their  philological  value  as  specimens  of 
Jewish  Greek  or  Hellenistic  composition,  any  more 
than  in  the  case  of  the  Septuagint  itself.  For  this 
reason,  and  because,  with  the  exception  of  a  single 
book  (Ecclesiasticus),  which  is  avowedly  translated 
from  the  Hebrew,  the  evidence  of  this  fact  is  exclu 
sively  internal  and  conjectural,  it  will  be  best  to 
treat  them  all  alike,  merely  observing,  once  for  all, 
that  besides  the  book  just  mentioned,  those  re 
garded  by  the  latest  critics  as  most  probably  trans 
lated  from  some  other  language,  are  the  books  of 
Tobit,  Judith,  and  1  Maccabees,  together  with  the 
brief  composition  called  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh ; 
whereas  all  the  other  books  of  Maccabees  and  Es 
dras  (which  exist  in  Greek),  the  book  of  Wisdom, 
the  epistle  of  Jeremy,  and  the  additions  to  Esther 

connection?  Into  what  classes  may  they  be  divided  as  to  origin? 
Why  is  this  distinction  unimportant  for  our  present  purpose  ?  How 
is  the  line  drawn  by  the  latest  critics  ? 


104:  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

and  Daniel,  are  now  commonly  regarded  as  original 
Greek  compositions.  The  book  of  Bamcli  is  re 
ferred  by  some  to  either  class,  the  first  half  having 
indications  of  translation,  which  the  latter  half  does 
not  exhibit. 

§  116.  As  the  term  Apocrypha  is  somewhat  vague, 
and  the  number  of  books  comprehended  under  it 
not  perfectly  determinate,  it  may  be  useful  for  our 
present  purpose  to  define  it  by  restricting  it  to  those 
liooks  which  are  found  in  the  Septuagint  version, 
but  not  in  the  original  Hebrew.  How  they  gained 
admission  to  the  Greek  translation,  where  we  find 
them  intermingled  with  the  canonical  books,  can 
only  be  conjectured.  The  most  probable  opinion  is 
that  the  Greek  or  Hellenistic  canon  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament,  having  no  such  protection  as  the  Masora, 
or  critical  tradition  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  the 
official  or  professional  inspection  of  the  Scribes,  it 
was  not  always  easy  to  determine  whether  books 
npon  religious  subjects,  which  were  current  among 
foreign  or  Greek-speaking  Jews,  were  canonical  or 
not ;  and  as  no  authority  existed  out  of  Palestine  to 
settle  such  disputes,  some  corruption  became  un 
avoidable. 

§  116.  How  may  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  be  conveniently 
defined?  How  did  they  gain  admission  to  the  Septuagint  version? 


NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEKATURE.  105 

§117.  Although  we  are  directly  concerned  only 
with  the  language  of  these  books,  and  not  with 
their  intrinsic  value,  either  literary  or  religious,  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  observe,  before  proceeding 
further,  that  this  value  is  as  far  as  possible  from 
being  uniform  or  equal.  On  the  contrary,  the 
most  remote  extremes  may  here  be  said  to  meet,  of 
eloquence  and  drivel,  of  the  highest  human  wisdom 
and  the  silliest  of  nonsense.  While  the  story  of 
Susanna,  and  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  are  at  best  in 
genious  fables  in  the  style  of  Scripture,  and  the 
larger  books  of  Tobit  and  Judith  mere  domestic  or 
historical  romances,  and  the  additions  to  Esther, 
with  the  books  of  Esdras,  mere  gratuitous  additions 
to  the  corresponding  parts  of  Scripture,  the  two 
books  of  Maccabees,  and  more  especially  the  first, 
are  almost  the  only  sources  of  our  knowledge  as  to 
the  period  of  the  Maccabees  or  princes.  On  the 
other  hand,  with  many  indications  of  the  doctrinal 
corruption  of  the  Jews,  the  moral  books  of  the 
Apocryphas  abound  in  noble  sentiments  and  true 
philosophy  immeasurably  higher  than  the  heathen 
standard,  and  often  rising  to  a  high  degree  of  elo 
quence,  not  only  in  the  Greek,  but  in  the  English 
version,  made  at  the  same  time  with  that  of  the  in- 


§  117.  How  do  the  books  differ  among  themselves?    Which  arc 
the  best  books,  historic  and  moral? 


106  NEW  TESTAMENT  LITEKATUKE. 

spired  Scriptures,  and  containing  many  words  and 
phrases  not  to  be  found  there,  though  all  belonging 
to  this  well  of  English  pure  and  undenled.  The 
two  books,  called  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  are 
the  most  successful  imitations  of  the  style  of  Solo 
mon  that  have  ever  been  attempted,  and  perhaps 
approach  as  nearly  to  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  as  any  uninspired  writings  could  at  any 
rate,  much  nearer  than  would  be  attainable  by 
even  the  most  gifted  modern  writer.  One  of  these 
aprocryphal,  but  ancient  compositions,  is  retained, 
not  only  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  by  the 
Church  of  England  in  her  daily  service,  as  the 
JBciiedicite,  or  Canticle,  to  be  said  or  sung  in  place 
of  the  Te  Deum,  at  the  option  of  the  minister. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   APOCRYPHA. 

§  118.  As  to  the  use  of  these  books  in  reference 
to  the  New  Testament  it  is  of  course  not  intended 
to  advise  the  expenditure  of  time  and  labor  upon 
such  aprocryphal  productions  in  the  case  of  ordi 
nary  ministers,  but  only  to  indicate  a  source  from 
which  the  best  writers  now  derive  important  illus- 


§  118.  How  arc  these  books  to  be  used  by  the  student  of  tho 
New  Testament  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   L1TEKATUBE.  107 

trations  of  the  language  and  external  form  of  the 
~Ncw  Testament.  At  the  same  time  there  is  a  cer 
tain  amount  of  general  knowledge  with  respect  to 
the  Apocrypha  which  may  be  reckoned  almost  in 
dispensable  to  every  educated  minister  and  critical 
student  of  the  Scriptures.  Of  this  I  have  given  a 
mere  outline  which  may  be  filled  up  by  private 
reading  as  you  find  desirable  hereafter,* 

§  119.  The  next  group  of  Hellenistic  writings 
includes  those  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  put  together 
as  belonging  to  no  other  class,  and  as  living  nearly 
at  the  same  time,  namely,  Philo  contemporary  with 
our  Saviour,  and  Josephus  belonging  to  the  next 
generation.  Although  both  were  Jews,  yet  emi 
nent  Greek  writers,  and,  therefore,  in  the  strictest 
sense  Hellenists,  f  there  could  scarcely  be  two  writ 
ers  of  the  same  class  more  unlike  in  their  particular 
characteristics.  They  were  not  even  residents  or 
natives  of  the  same  country,  and  were  wholly  un 
like  in  their  literary  tastes  and  predilections,  the 
one  connecting  Jewish  learning  and  religion  with 

*  For  a  full  description  of  the  Apocryphal  books,  with  the  latest 
opinions  in  relation  to  them,  see  the  2d  volume  of  Home's  Intro 
duction  (new  edition.) 

§  119.  What  is  the  next  group  of  Hellenistic  writings?  Why 
are  Philo  and  Josephus  classed  together  ?  How  do  they  differ  from 
each  other? 


103  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

the  Greek  philosophy,  the  other  with  Greek  his 
tory.  The  one  has  been  called  the  Jewish  Plato, 
the  other  might  be  called  the  Jewish  Xenophon. 

§  120.  Of  Philo's  life  we  know  but  little  beyond 
the  fact  that  he  was  born  and  lived  in  Alexandria, 
where  he  enjoyed  a  high  reputation  both  for  elo 
quence  and  learning,  and  was  sent,  about  the  year 
42,  to  represent  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  at  Rome, 
in  opposition  to  a  heathen  deputation  led  by  Apion, 
and  commissioned  to  accuse  the  Jews  before  Calig 
ula,  who  treated  Philo  and  his  cause  with  great 
severity,  refusing  even  to  let  him  speak,  and  even 
threatening  his  life.  Later  legends  or  traditions 
of  the  Church  represent  him  as  a  convert  to  Chris 
tianity,  and  a  friend  of  St.  Peter  whom  he  met  at 
Rome,  but  as  afterwards  apostatizing.  More  au 
thentic,  no  doubt,  are  the  statements  with  re- 
pect  to  his  high  standing  by  Josephus  and  Eu- 
sebius. 

§  121.  Philo's  learning  seems  to  have  been 
wholly  Greek,  and  chiefly  philosophical.  He  is 
commonly  supposed  to  have  had  no  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew  language  as  he  always  quotes  the  Sep- 

§  120.  What  is  known  of  Philo's  history  ?     What  later  legends 
with  respect  to  him  ? 

§  121.  What  was  the  character  of  Thilo's  learning?     What  was 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  100 

tuagint  version,  and  sometimes  betrays  ignorance 
of  the  original.  He  is  not  considered  an  authority 
even  with  respect  to  Jewish  usages  and  doctrines. 
The  great  aim  of  his  life  was  to  find  the  principles 
of  Plato  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  thus  to  recon 
cile  his  philosophical  convictions  with  his  heredi 
tary  faith  in  the  Old  Testament.  This  could  be 
accomplished,  even  in  appearance,  only  by  the 
most  unnatural  interpretations  (aXXyyopiai)  of  the 
Cosmogony  and  Primeval  History,  as  well  as  that 
of  the  Patriarchs,  together  with  the  Life  and  Laws 
of  Moses.  These  are  accordingly  the  chief  topics  of 
his  extant  works,  consisting  of  detached  pieces,  or 
perhaps  of  one  continued  work  divided  by  his 
copyists  or  editors.  The  abstruse  and  uninterest 
ing  character  thus  given  to  his  writings  has  caused 
them  to  be  little  read  or  known  in  later  times,  the 
principal  exception  being  those  in  which  he  gives 
historical  information,  as  to  the  Therapeutae  and 
Essenes  and  as  to  his  own  embassy  to  Home.  On 
the  other  hand,  his  forced  allegorical  interpreta 
tions  are  supposed  to  have  exerted  an  unfavour 
able  influence,  not  only  on  the  early  heretics,  but 

his  favourite  object?  Hovr  did  he  endeavour  to  accomplish  it? 
What  parts  of  Scripture  did  he  thus  allegorize?  What  is  the  form 
of  his  extant  writings?  Why  arc  they  little  read?  Which  of  them 
are  most  read  ? 


110  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

also  on  the  great  Alexandrian  school  of  Catholic 
Theology. 

§  122.  From  what  has  now  been  said  it  will  be 
seen  that  Philo's  writings  are  of  more  importance  as 
a  specimen  and  part  of  Hellenistic  Literature,  than 
from  any  practical  assistance  which  they  yield  in 
the  criticism  or  interpretation  of  the  ISTew  Testa 
ment.  That  they  are  not  wholly  useless,  even  for 
this  end,  however,  may  be  gathered  from  the  long 
disputes  respecting  the  Platonic  Logos,  as  it  ap 
pears  in  Philo's  writings,  and  the  influence  exerted 
by  it  on  the  Christian  terminology  ;  as  well  as  from 
occasional  elucidations  of  particular  expressions, 
where  the  classical  and  Septuagint  usage  fail  us, 
and  the  only  authority  for  certain  senses  is  derived 
from  Philo.* 

§  123.  That  we  know  far  more  of  Josephus  is 
owing  partly  to  the  popularity  of  his  writings, 
partly  to  the  gossiping  and  egotistical  autobiogra 
phy  found  among  them.  The  main  points  of  his 

*  Sec  for  example  the  verb  KaroirTptfa,  as  explained  by  Hodge 
on  2  Cor.  3,  18  (p.  76.) 

§  122.  What  is  the  chief  value  of  Philo's  writings?  What  do 
they  illustrate  in  theology  ?  How  do  they  throw  light  on  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament  ? 

§  123.  Why  do  we  know  more  cf  Josephus?    What  are  the 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  Ill 

history,  as  there  recorded,  are  his  high  extraction 
(priestly  on  his  father's  side,  and  royal  on  his 
mother's) ;  his  great  advantages  of  education  in  the 
Holy  Land,  and  his  unusual  precocity  in  learning  ; 
his  deliberate  comparison  of  the  three  great  sects 
or  parties,  and  his  final  preference  of  the  Pharisees ; 
his  embassy  to  Rome  in  behalf  of  certain  priests 
whom  Felix  had  sent  there  for  trial ;  his  success  in 
tliis  commission,  and  kind  treatment  by  Poppgea, 
wife  of  Nero  ;  his  shipwreck  in  the  Adriatic,  with  a 
company  of  six  hundred ;  his  advancement  to  im 
portant  public  posts  at  home,  both  civil  and  mili 
tary  ;  his  settled  opposition  to  the  Zealots,  and  their 
consequent  distrust  of  him  ;  his  masterly  defence  of 
Jotapata  against  the  army  of  Yespasian  for  seven 
weeks ;  the  loss  of  the  place  by  treason,  and  his 
favourable  treatment  by  Yespasian  and  Titus  ;  his 
return  with  them  to  Home,  and  then  again  to  Pal 
estine,  and  ocular  witness  of  the  Jewish  war  until 
the  downfall  and  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The 
History  of  this  War  is  his  earliest  production,  and 
appeared  about  A.  D.  75,  in  seven  books,  two  of 

salient  points  of  his  biography  ?  What  were  his  advantages  of 
birth,  education,  and  position?  What  points  of  contact  with  the 
history  of  Paul?  What  public  stations  did  he  fill?  What  was  his 
relation  to  the  Zealots  ?  What  was  his  chief  military  achievement? 
How  was  he  treated  by  the  Roman  conquerors?  How  did  he  be 
come  a  witness  of  the  Jewish  war  ?  To  which  of  his  works  did  it 


112  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUEE. 

which  contain  a  rapid  sketch  of  Jewish  history, 
from  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  the  appearance 
of  Yespasian  in  the  Holy  Land ;  the  other  five,  a 
most  minute  description  of  the  war  that  followed, 
and  of  which  Josephus  was  not  only  an  eye-witness, 
but  a  magna  pars. 

§  124.  Eighteen  years  later  (A.  D.  93),  he 
brought  out  his  'ApxcuoXoyia  lovSaixij,  promised  in 
his  first  work,  and  containing  (in  twenty  books) 
an  elaborate  paraphrase  of  the  Old  Testament  His 
tory,  with  occasional  deviations  and  additions,  per 
haps  founded  on  a  national  tradition,  or  derived 
from  authentic  sources,  but  in  many  cases,  no 
doubt,  merely  conjectural  or  fanciful.  After  the 
close  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  history  has  more  of 
an  original  and  independent  character,  although  it 
follows  the  books  of  Maccabees  so  far  as  they  go. 
The  period  handled  in  the  first  books  of  the  Jewish 
War  is  more  particularly  treated  here,  down  to  the 

furnish  a  subject  and  occasion  ?  When  did  this  work  appear?  How 
is  it  divided?  What  is  the  subject  of  the  two  first  books?  What 
is  the  subject  of  the  rest  ?  What  gives  it  great  authority  ? 

§  124.  What  was  his  other  great  work?  What  is  the  meaning 
of  the  title  ?  When  did  it  appear?  How  is  it  divided  ?  What  is 
the  first  and  larger  part?  What  is  its  relation  to  the  Old  Testament 
history  ?  What  is  probably  the  source  of  his  variations  and  addi 
tions?  How  are  they  to  be  received?  What  is  the  value  of  the 
later  part  ?  What  older  history  does  it  follow  ?  What  is  common 
to  both  these  great  works  of  Josephus  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITER ATUKE.  113 

time  of  Gessius  Florus,  whose  severities  occasioned 
the  great  outbreak. 

§  125.  A  third  work  of  Josephus,  not  to  be  con 
founded  with  the  second,  from  the  similarity  of  the 
title,  is  his  Two  Books  against  Apion,  concerning 
the  antiquity  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  in  which  he 
vindicates  the  truth  of  sacred  history,  and  the  doc 
trines  of  the  true  religion,  as  he  understood  them, 
against  heathen  charges  and  objections.  This  work 
is  valuable  chiefly  for  the  knowledge  which  it  gives 
us  of  more  ancient  writings  long  since  perished, 
such  as  the  dynasties  of  Manetho. 

§  126.  Besides  the  clear  though  incidental  tes 
timony  which  Josephus  bears  to  the  existence  and 
the  character  of  Christ  and  John  the  Baptist,  he  is 
almost  our  sole  dependence  for  the  last  years  of  the 
Jewish  state,  and  often  useful  as  a  commentator  on 
the  earlier  history.  His  credit  as  a  historian  has 
fluctuated  greatly.  The  contemporary  Jews  con 
sidered  him  a  traitor  to  their  cause,  and  accused 
him  of  falsifying  history.  This  led  their  Christian 
opponents  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  overweening 


§  125.  What  third  work  of  Josephus  is  still  extant?  What  is 
its  design  ?  What  is  its  chief  value  ? 

§  126.  What  testimony  does  Josephus  bear  to  Christ  and  his 
forerunner  ?  What  arc  the  different  opinions  on  the  passage  which 


114:  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

praise  and  confidence.  Between  these  two  extremes 
the  opinion  of  the  learned  world  has  oscillated  ever 
since.  Some  German  writers  do  not  hesitate  to 
prefer  his  authority  to  that  of  the  "New  Testament. 
Others  argue  from  his  flattery  of  Yespasian  and 
Agrippa,  that  he  cannot  be  relied  upon.  The  pres 
ent  tendency,  as  in  the  case  of  Herodotus  and  other 
ancient  writers,  is  to  a  more  moderate  and  just  appre 
ciation  of  Josephus  as  a  highly  qualified  and  gen 
erally  trustworthy  witness,  although  not  free  from 
the  common  lot  of  weakness  and  corruption. 

§  127.  The  Jewish  War  wras  written,  as  we  learn 
from  himself,  in  the  language  of  his  country,  and 
translated  into  Greek  for  the  use  of  Gentile  readers. 
As  he  makes  no  such  statement  with  respect  to  the 
Antiquities,  we  may  suppose  that  the  interval  of 
eighteen  years,  which  he  chiefly  spent  at  Rome, 
enabled  him  to  use  Greek  in  the  first  instance.  He 
affects  Attic  elegance  in  composition,  but  occasion 
ally  shows  his  Hellenistic  origin.  The  writings  of 
Josephus  are  among  the  most  popular  of  ancient 
works.  They  and  Plutarch's  lives  are  constantly 
reprinted  in  cheap  editions,  and  circulate  even 

relates  to  Christ  ?     How  may  the  historical  uses  of  his  writings  be 
summed  up  ?    Why  has  his  credit  fluctuated  ?    How  is  it  at  present  ? 
§  127.  In  what  language  did  Josephus  write  ?     How  far  are  his 
writings  known  to  English  readers  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  115 

among  uneducated  readers.  Winston's  rude  but 
faithful  version  is  within  the  reach  of  all  who  read 
at  all,  both  in  the  homeliest  and  in  more  attractive 
forms. 

§  128.  The  sixth  group  of  Hellenistic  writings 
(reckoning  the  ]S"ew  Testament  itself  as  one)  com 
prises  what  are  called  the  Apostolic  Fathers  on  the 
verge  of  the  first  and  second  centuries.  The  name 
of  Apostolic  Fathers  has  been  given  to  those  unin 
spired  wTriters  who  were  disciples,  or  at  least  con 
temporaries  of  the  Apostles.  There  are  seven  usu 
ally  reckoned,  though  the  authenticity  of  several  is 
still  disputed.  A  full  view  of  this  subject  belongs 
to  the  ancient  period  of  Church  History.  Only  so 
much  of  it  will  here  be  given  as  may  be  needed  to 
complete  our  outline  sketch  of  Hellenistic  Lite 
rature. 

§  120.  The  first  place  in  the  catalogue  is  com 
monly  assigned  to  Clement  of  Rome  (or  Clemens 
Romanus),  represented  by  tradition  as  one  of  the 
earliest  bishops  of  that  church,  and  supposed  to  be 


§  128.  "What  is  the  sixth  group  of  Helleuistic  writings?  What 
is  meant  by  Apostolical  Fathers  ?  How  many  are  usually  reckoned  ? 
Where  does  this  history  properly  belong?  IIo\v  much  of  it  will 
here  be  given  ? 

§  129.  To  whom  is  the  first  place  commonly  assigned?     Where 


116  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

the  person  named  by  Paul  in  liis  epistle  to  the 
Philippians  (4,  3),  as  one  of  his  fellow-labourers. 
An  epistle  of  this  Clement  to  the  Church  at  Corinth 
was  not  only  well  known  to  the  ancients,  but  actu 
ally  read  in  public  worship,  but  when  this  was 
discontinued,  perhaps  on  the  final  settlement  of  the 
Canon,  the  epistle  was  lost  sight  of  until  re-discov 
ered  in  the  seventeenth  century,  as  forming  part  of 
the  contents  of  the  famous  Codex  Alexandrinus,  of 
which  some  account  will  be  given  in  another  place. 
It  is  an  earnest  exhortation  to  humility  and  con 
cord,  modelled  upon  Paul's  epistles,  but  without 
much  original  or  independent  value.  The  same 
manuscript  contains  a  portion  of  another  composi 
tion  under  the  name  of  Clement,  commonly  called 
his  second  epistle,  but  more  correctly  described  as 
a  homily  or  discourse,  and  of  very  doubtful  genu 
ineness,  as  it  is  not  mentioned  by  the  ancient 
writers,  though  it  may  be  of  the  same  age,  and 
available  in  illustration  of  the  later  Hellenistic 
dialect.  Other  writings,  once  ascribed  to  Clement, 

is  he  supposed  to  be  named  in  the  New  Testament  ?  What  work  of 
his  is  mentioned  by  the  ancient  writers?  How  was  it  then  esteem 
ed?  What  is  its  later  history  ?  What  are  its  contents  ?  What  is 
its  character?  What  other  writing  is  ascribed  to  Clemont?  Why 
is  its  genuineness  doubtful?  How  may  it  be  used,  whether' genuine 
or  not  ?  What  later  writings  have  been  falsely  ascribed  to  the  same 
person  ?  Where  does  their  history  belong  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  117 

such  as  the  Clementina,  the  Apostolical  Canons, 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  and  a  few  decretal  briefs 
or  letters,  are  undoubtedly  of  later  date,  and  will 
be  here  left  out  of  view  entirely,  as  belonging  to 
the  ecclesiastical  history  and  literature  of  succeed 
ing  centuries. 

§  130.  Under  the  name  of  Barnabas  there  is  ex 
tant  an  epistle  which  was  certainly  known  to  Clem 
ent  of  Alexandria,  and  which  many  still  regard  as 
the  production  of  the  Barnabas  so  often  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  Paul's  epistles  ; 
while  others  infer  from  its  allegorical  interpreta 
tions  of  Scripture,  and  the  disrespect  with  which  it 
seems  to  treat  the  institutions  of  the  old  economy, 
that  it  is  of  a  later  date,  and  either  a  forgery  (or 
pious  fraud),  or  possibly  the  composition  of  some 
other  Barnabas,  erroneously  confounded  with  the 
primitive  missionary  or  apostle.  Even  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  regard  it  as  apocryphal,  i.  e.,  not  be 
longing  to  the  Canon. 

§  131.  Another  name  occurring  in  the  E"ew 
Testament,  and  also  as  the  author  of  an  extant 
writing,  is  that  of  Ilcrmas  (Hermes),  named  by 

§  130.  What  writing  is  ascribed  to  Barnabas?  What  arc  the 
opinions  as  to  its  author  ?  What  are  the  supposed  indications  of 
later  date  ?  How  do  Eusebius  and  Jerome  regard  it  ? 


118  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE. 

Paul  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  (16,  14),  and  in 
the  title  of  a  book  called  the  Shepherd,  which  we 
find  referred  to,  as  an  ancient  composition,  by  Ori- 
gen,  in  the  third  century.  It  consists  of  three 
parts,  the  first  of  which  contains  four  Yisions,  the 
second  twelve  Mandates,  and  the  third  ten  Simili 
tudes,  the  whole  communicated  by  an  angel  in  the 
form  of  a  shepherd.  This  book,  though  fanciful 
and  mystical,  was  highly  esteemed  in  the  ancient 
church,  being  often  read  in  worship,  and  regarded 
as  inspired  by  such  men  as  Origen  and  Irenseus. 
The  Muratori  fragment  before  mentioned,  repre 
sents  it  as  the  work  of  another  Hennas,  the  brother 
of  Pius,  who  was  bishop  of  Rome  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  The  intrinsic  value  of  the 
work  is  small,  and  even  its  literary  interest  for  us 
not  great,  as  it  now  exists  only  in  the  form  of  a 
very  ancient  Latin  version. 

§  132.  The  same  thing  is  partially  true  of  an 
undisputed  writing  of  the  same  class,  an  epistle  of 

§  131.  Where  is  Hernias  named  in  the  New  Testament?  What 
work  bears  the  same  name  ?  How  far  back  may  it  be  traced  ?  How 
is  it  divided  ?  What  are  the  contents  of  the  several  books  ?  Wha.t 
is  the  character  of  the  whole  ?  How  was  it  regarded  by  the  an 
cients?  How  by  Origen  and  Irenseus?  To  whom  is  it  ascribed 
in  the  Muratori  fragment  ?  What  is  its  literary  and  religious  value  ? 
Why  is  it  comparatively  unavailable  for  our  immediate  purpose? 


NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  119 

Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  a  disciple  of  St.  John, 
and  an  eminent  martyr  under  Marcus  Aurelius  (A. 
D.  168).  This  epistle  is  addressed  to  the  Philip- 
pi  ans,  and  is  valuable  chiefly  on  account  of  its  cita 
tions  or  references  to  the  Kew  Testament.  Of  the 
Greek  original  there  are  only  fragments  extant,  but 
a  complete  Latin  version.  • 

§  133.  Ostensibly  much  earlier  in  date,  but  of 
far  more  doubtful  authenticity,  are  the  famous  epis 
tles  of  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  martyr,  under 
Trajan,  which  have  been  a  subject  of  dispute  for  ages. 
The  maximum  number  is  fifteen,  but  a  majority  of 
these,  five  in  Greek,  and  three  in  Latin,  are  now 
unanimously  looked  upon  as  spurious.  The  re 
maining  seven  exist  in  two  forms  (or  recensions),  a 
longer  or  a  shorter,  each  of  which  is  claimed  to  be 
the  original  by  many  learned  writers.  Within  a 
few  years  a  still  shorter  form  in  Syriac  has  been 
recently  discovered,  and  is  by  some  regarded  as  the 
original  form,  by  others  as  a  mere  abridgment  or 
mutilation  of  it,  while  a  third  class  reject  all  three 

§  132.  Who  was  Polycarp?  When  and  how  did  he  die?  What 
extant  writing  bears  his  name  ?  What  is  its  chief  value  ? 

§  133.  Who  was  Ignatius?  When  and  how  did  he  die ?  What 
extant  writings  bear  his  name  ?  What  is  the  whole  number  of 
epistles?  How  many  are  now  universally  rejected?  In  what  two 
Greek  forms  do  the  rest  appear  ?  What  third  form  has  been  re 
cently  discovered?  What  different  estimates  are  formed  of  it?  What 


120  NEW    TESTAMENT    LITEKATUEE. 

recensions  as  alike  supposititious.  The  epistles  are 
remarkable  for  earnest  opposition  to  certain  forms  of 
heresy,  and  zealous  assertion  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
but  chiefly  for  the  zeal  with  which  they  urge  the 
claims  of  the  episcopate,  and  which  has  given  them 
importance  in  connection  with  exciting  questions  of 
church-government.  Whether  written  by  Ignatius 
or  not,  their  language  is  essentially  the  Greek  of 
the  ~New  Testament,  and  therefore  Hellenistic. 

§  134.  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  (and  martyr), 
like  Polycarp,  is  said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  St. 
John,  and  a  diligent  collector  of  the  sayings  and  do 
ings  of  our  Lord,  as  preserved  by  oral  tradition.  His 
book  (\oyla)v  /cvpiaicwv  e^y^o-t?)  exists  only  in  frag 
ments,  preserved  by  Irenseus  and  Eusebius.  The  lat 
ter  describes  him  as  a  man  of  little  mind  and  a  gross 
Chiliast,  which  error  was  extensively  promoted  by 
his  writings. 

§  135.  With  these  Apostolical  Fathers,  com 
monly  so-called,  is  usually  classed  the  anonymous 
writer  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  once  ascribed  to 


are  the  characteristics  of  the  seven  Greek  epistles?  What  has 
given  them  great  interest  in  modern  times  ?  What  is  their  philolog 
ical  character? 

§  134.  Who  was  Papias?  What  book  did  he  write?  In  what 
form  has  it  been  preserved  ?  How  does  Eusebius  describe  him  ? 
What  form  of  error  did  he  help  to  propagate  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  121 

Justin  Martyr  because  found  among  liis  works,  but 
now  regarded  as  of  earlier  date,  and  by  one  who 
describes  himself  as  aTroa-roXayv  <yei>6/ji6vos  /jLa&r]Tij$. 
It  is  an  eloquent  defence  of  Christianity  against  the  ob- 
jections  of  an  intelligent  heathen  friend,  and  is  much 
more  elegant  in  style  than  most  Hellenistic  writings. 

§  136.  !N"ot  only  as  a  specimen  of  Hellenistic 
literature,  but  as  a  connecting  link  between  the 
Apostolical  and  later  Christian  writings,  these 
works  are  entitled  to  attention  on  the  part  of  min 
isters  and  others  who  are  interested  in  the  early 
church,  though  only  few  may  be  called  to  spend 
much  time  upon  them.  They  have  been  translated 
into  English  more  than  once,  the  best  known  ver 
sion  being  by  an  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  the 
early  part  of  the  last  century  (Dr.  Wake),  who 
was  disposed,  however,  to  exaggerate  their  value. 
Among  the  editions  of  the  original,  there  is  a  beauti 
ful  and  cheap  one  in  a  single  volume,  edited  by  Hefele, 
a  Roman  Catholic  professor  of  high  standing.* 

*  Tiibingen,  1847  (3d  edition). 

§  135.  What  anonymous  work  belongs  to  the  same  class?  To 
whom  was  it  formerly  ascribed,  and  why  ?  How  does  the  writer 
describe  himself?  What  is  the  subject  of  the  epistle  ?  What  is 
the  character  of  its  language  ? 

§  136.  Why  are  these  works  entitled  to  attention?  Where  do 
they  exist  in  English  ?  What  is  the  most  convenient  edition  of  the 
original  ? 

6 


122  NEW   TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 

§  1ST.  The  last  group  of  writings  that  can  be 
regarded  as  belonging  to  the  Hellenistic  class,  even 
in  the  widest  sense  of  the  expression,  are  the  New 
Testament  Apocrypha,  a  heterogeneous  mass  of  for 
geries  or  pseudepigrapha,  which  sprang  up,  with  a 
rank  growth,  chiefly  in  the  second  century,*  in 
tended  partly  to  maintain  and  propagate  heretical 
opinions  ;  partly  to  glorify  the  true  religion  by  the 
unlawful  means  of  pious  frauds,  but  chiefly  to  fill 
up  the  supposed  deficiencies  and  chasms  in  the 
canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Of  these 
writings  none  are  strictly  doctrinal  in  substance, 
and  only  one  or  two  epistolary  in  form,  such  as  the 
epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  supposed  to  be  referred  to 
in  Col.  4,  16,  and  a  third  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
supposed  to  be  .referred  to  in  1  Cor.  5,  9  ;  to  say 
nothing  of  the  pretended  correspondence  between 
Paul  and  Seneca,  or  that  between  our  Lord  himself 
and  Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa.  Some  of  these  writ 
ings  are  pretended  prophecies,  ascribed  to  heathen 

*  *  Epiphanius  mentions  thousands  of  Gnostic  Apocrypha,  and 
Irenceus  found,  among  the  Valentinians  alone,  inerrabilis  multitudo 
apocryphorum  et  perperam  scripturarum. 

§  137.  "What  is  the  last  group  of  Hellenistic  writings?  What  do 
Irenffius  and  Epiphanius  say  as  to  their  number?  When  do  they 
most  abound?  What  were  their  various  designs?  Are  any  of  them 
doctrinal  ?  Which  are  epistolary  in  form  ?  Which  are  prophetic  ? 
What  apocryphal  apocalypses  are  thcro  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  123 

seers  (as  the  Sibylline  books,  in  Homeric  hexame 
ters),  or  to  real  characters  in  sacred  history,  such  as 
the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  all  which  con 
tain  express  predictions  of  the  Saviour  and  the 
Christian  Church.* 

§  138.  But  most  of  these  Apocrypha  are  histo 
ries,  intended  to  supply  the  omissions  of  the  Gospels 
or  the  Acts.  Some,  no  longer  in  existence,  but 
referred  to  by  the  ancient  writers,  such  as  the  Gos 
pel  of  the  Hebrews,  that  of  the  Egyptians,  that  of 
Peter,  that  of  Marcion,  seem  to  have  been  mere 
corruptions  of  the  canonical  four  gospels,  made 
for  the  use  of  heretical  sects.  Others,  still  extant, 
and  more  properly  denoted  by  the  name  Apocry 
pha,  do  not  purport  to  be  complete  histories  01 
Christ,  but  only  supplements  relating  chiefly  to  his 
childhood  and  his  passion.  Of  the  former  class,  the 
oldest  -and  the  least  extravagant  is  that  called  the 
Protevangelium  of  James  the  Less,  designed  to  glo- 

*  There  are  also  spurious  apocalypses  under  the  names  of  Peter, 
Paul,  Stephen,  Thomas,  and  even  John  himself,  all  of  which  appear 
to  have  been  more  or  less  absurd  imitations  of  the  genuine  Apoca 
lypse. 

§  138.  To  what  class  do  the  most  belong?  What  were  the  Gos 
pels  of  the  Hebrews,  the  Egyptians,  Peter,  Marcion,  &c.  ?  What 
parts  of  the  Gospel  History  do  the  extant  Apocrypha  pretend  to 


124:  NEW    TESTAMENT   LITEKATUEE. 

rify  the  Yirgin  Mary,  not  only  as  the  Mother  of 
our  Lord,  but  "by  relating  her  whole  history.  An 
other  of  the  same  general  character  is  the  Gospel  of 
the  Nativity  of  Mary,  purporting  to  be  written  by 
Matthew  and  translated  by  Jerome.  A  third  is, 
the  history  of  Joachim  and  Anna,  the  nativity  of 
Mary,  and  the  infancy  of  Christ,  chiefly  occupied 
with  miracles  wrought  by  him  in  the  flight  to  Egypt. 
A  fourth  is  the  history  of  Joseph  the  Carpenter, 
which  dwells  chiefly  on  the  circumstances  of  his 
death,  of  which  we  have  no  account  in  the  New 
Testament.  Far  more  absurd  than  these  is  the 
Gospel  of  the  Saviour's  infancy,  containing  a  multi 
tude  of  silly  and  unmeaning  miracles.  Still  worse 
is  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  which  pretends  to  give  the 
life  of  Christ,  from  his  twelfth  to  his  sixteenth  year. 
The  character  of  these  books  is  evinced  by  their  at 
tempting  to  supply  those  omissions  which  espe 
cially  illustrate  the  veracity  and  wisdom  of  the  true 
evangelists,  and  in  a  way  as  destitute  of  taste  and 
common  sense  as  of  religious  spirit  and  historical 
authority. 

give  ?  What  is  the  Protcvangelium  of  James  ?  What  is  the  Gospel 
of  the  Nativity  of  Mary  ?  The  history  of  Joachim  and  Anna  ?  The 
history  of  Joseph  the  Carpenter?  What  is  the  Gospel  of  the 
Saviour's  Infancy  ?  The  Gospel  of  Thomas?  What  is  the  charac 
teristic  difference  between  these  and  the  canonical  gospels? 


NEW   TESTAMENT  LITERATURE.  125 

§  139.  The  other  class  of  apocryphal  gospels 
professes  to  complete  the  closing  part  of  our  Lord's 
history,  by  furnishing  additional  details  as  to  his 
passion.  The  Gospel  of  Isicodemus  undertakes  to 
give  a  formal  record  of  the  proceedings  before 
Pilate  ;  an  account  of  two  of  the  resuscitated  saints 
referred  to  by  Matthew,  27,  52,  and  described  as  sons 
of  Simeon  ;  and  a  description  of  our  Lord's  descent 
into  hell.  The  Acts  of  Pilate  is  a  name  borne  by 
three  distinct  works,  only  one  of  which  is  extant. 
The  first  was  very  ancient,  being  mentioned  by 
Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian,  and  contained  a  re 
port  made  by  Pilate  to  Tiberius  ;  a  communication 
of  the  latter  to  the  Senate,  proposing  to  place  Christ 
among  the  gods ;  and  a  letter  of  Tiberius  to  his 
mother.  The  second  Acts  of  Pilate  were  of  heathen 
origin,  containing  blasphemous  perversions  of  the 
history  as  given  in  the  Gospels.  The  third,  still 
extant,  like  the  first,  though  far  posterior  in  date, 
purports  to  be  a  statement  made  by  Pilate  to  Tibe 
rius  of  the  miracles,  death,  and  resurrection  of  the 
Saviour.  To  these  may  be  added  an  account  of 
Pilate's  punishment,  and  an  epistle  of  Lentulns  to 
the  Roman  Senate,  containing  a  description  of 


§  139.  What  is  the  other  class  of  apocryphal  gospels?  What 
is  the  Gospel  of  Xicodemus?  How  many  books  have  been  entitled 
Acts  of  Pilate?  What  did  the  first  contain?  What  was  the 


126  NEW  TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

Christ's  personal  appearance.*  The  epistle  of  Len- 
tulus  also  originated  in  the  middle  ages,  and  seve 
ral  of  the  others  are  but  little  older,  while  a  few  of 
those  first  mentioned  approach  very  nearly  to  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  and  a  large  proportion  are 
most  probably  not  later  than  the  second  century, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  the  most  prolific  period 
of  this  supposititious  literature. 

§  140.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  in  this  whole 
collection  or  farrago,  there  is  not  one  book,  how 
ever  small,  which  approaches  in  literary  or  reli 
gious  value  to  the  better  books  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  Apocrypha.  Indeed  they  may  all  be  de 
scribed  as  intrinsically  worthless,  and  indebted  for 
whatever  adventitious  value  they  possess  to  their 
indirect  bearing  on  the  genuine  Xew  Testament. 
Their  use  in  this  respect  is  threefold.  1.  In  the 

*  There  were  many  apocryphal  lives  of  the  Apostles  current  in 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  chiefly  of  Gnostic  origin  and  ten 
dency.  The  fullest  collection  (that  of  Tischendorf )  contains  thir 
teen,  of  which  seven  have  been  recently  discovered.  The  latest  in 
date  is  the  Historia  Ccrtaminis  Apostolorum,  which,  though  con 
taining  older  materials,  is  probably  as  late  as  the  ninth  century. 

second?  What  is  the  one  now  extant?  What  other  writings  of 
the  same  class?  What  Apocryphal  Acts  are  there? 

§  140.  How  do  these  books  compare  with  the  Old  Testament 
Apocrypha  ?  "What  is  their  intrinsic  worth  ?  What  is  their  adven- 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE.  127 

first  place,  they  illustrate,  by  a  glaring  contrast, 
the  perfection  of  the  Scriptures,  in  comparison  with 
writers  of  the  same  race  and  religion,  and  in  some 
cases  almost  of  the  same  age.  Even  the  Apostol 
ical  Fathers  answer  the  same  purpose  of  exhibiting 
the  difference  between  inspired  and  uninspired  men 
of  the  same  general  character  and  class ;  but  the 
contrast  is  vastly  more  instructive  as  presented  in 
these  obvious  imitations  and  professed  improve 
ments  on  the  sacred  record. 

§  14:1.  In  the  next  place,  they  illustrate  the  dis 
cretion,  care,  and  even  critical  skill,  with  which  the 
ancient  church  preserved  the  sacred  Canon  and  as 
serted  its  exclusive  claims  against  so  many,  and 
such  impudent,  competitors.  ]STot  that  the  present 
Canon  is,  as  some  allege,  a  gradual  selection  made, 
as  taste  and  judgment  were  improved,  from  a  pro 
miscuous  mass  originally  equal  in  their  claims  and 
estimation — which  would  leave  us  no  alternative 
but  that  of  making  all  inspired  or  none — but  be 
cause  these  wretched  imitations,  all  posterior  in 
date  to  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  by  their  intrinsic 

titious  value  ?     How  do  they  enhance  that  of  the  Canonical  Scrip 
tures?     Why  more  so  than  the  Apostolic  Fathers? 

§  141.  What  bearing  have  they  on  the  question  of  the  Canon? 
What  is  the  false  view  of  their  original  relation  to  it  ?  To  what 
dangerous  conclusion  does  it  lead  ?  What  is  their  true  relation  to 
it  ?  How  do  they  corroborate  the  external  testimony  in  its  favour? 


128  NEW  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE. 

meanness  or  absurdity,  confirm  the  judgment  of  the 
ancients  which  excludes  them  from  the  Canon,  and 
corroborate  the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
twenty-seven  books  which  now  compose  it. 

§  142.  In  the  last  place,  these  Apocrypha,  in 
trinsically  worthless  as  they  are,  possess  a  certain 
literary  interest,  as  samples  of  the  language  and 
the  dialect  employed  in  the  'New  Testament.  But 
this,  which  is  their  only  claim  to  notice  here,  has 
reference  of  course  only  to  such  books  as  now  exist 
in  Greek,  whether  as  originals  or  versions.  Some, 
which  were  written  in  that  language,  are  now  ex- 

O          O     7 

tant  only  in  translations,  e.  g.  the  Ascension  of 
Isaiah,  in  Ethiopia  ;  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans, 
in  Latin ;  the  third  to  the  Corinthians,  in  Ar 
menian  ;  the  Historia  Certaminis  Apostolorum,  in 
a  Latin  version  of  a  Greek  version  of  a  Hebrew 
original  ;  the  History  of  Joseph,  in  an  Arabic 
translation  from  the  Coptic  ;  the  Nativity  of  Mary, 
in  a  Latin  translation  from  the  Greek ;  the  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy  of  Christ,  in  an  Arabic  translation 
from  the  Syriac,  &c.  Some — e.  g.  the  History  of 
Joachim  and  Anna,  the  Acta  Pilati,  as  now  extant, 
&c. — seem  to  be  Latin  originals,  while  only  a  few, 

§  142.  What  is  their  philological  use  ?  To  which  of  them  is  this 
restricted  ?  How  differ  as  to  language  ?  Which  of  them  do  not 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  129 

but  those  the  oldest,  and  in  other  respects  the  most 
important — such  as  the  Protcvangelium  of  James, 
the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  and  of  Nicodemus,  the  Ana- 
baticon  of  Paul,  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Pa 
triarchs,  and  the  Sibylline  Oracles — appear  to  have 
existed  always  in  a  Greek  form.  It  is  only  with 
these,  therefore,  that  we  are  concerned,  as  affording 
illustration  to  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  constituting  the  last  class  of  writings  which 
can  be  considered  as  belonging,  even  in  the  widest 
sense  of  the  expression,  to  the  field  of  Hellenistic 
Literature.  [Besides  more  general  and  costly  col 
lections  of  the  New  Testament  Apocrypha,  Tischen- 
dorf  has  published  critical  editions  of  the  spu 
rious  Acts  and  Gospels,  each  in  an  elegant  octavo 
volume]. 

§  143.  Having  now  surveyed  the  Hellenistic 
Literature  in  its  outlines  and  its  principal  divisions, 
we  return  to  our  main  theme,  the  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  to  the  question,  what  kind  oi 
Greek  it  is  ?  Before  considering  it  for  ourselves, 

exist  in  Greek  at  all?  Which  are  Latin  originals?  Which  are 
Greek  originals  ?  Where  are  the  New  Testament  Apocrypha  col 
lected  ? 

§  143.  What  is  the  question  now  before  us?     What  historical 
inquiry  still  remains?     How  far  back  must  it  be  carried?     What 
was  the  state  of  learning  in  the  middle  ages  ? 
G* 


130 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 


it  will  be  well  to  glance  at  the  history  of  opinion 
with  respect  to  it,  involving  that  of  a  most  curious 
and  protracted  controversy,  the  results  of  which 
are  still  perceptible  in  this  important  field  of  sacred 
learning.  To  make  this  narrative  intelligible,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  begin  as  far  back  as  the  Refor 
mation — or  rather  in  the  period  of  darkness  which 
preceded  it,  and  during  which  ancient  learning,  as 
well  biblical  as  classical,  was  banished  from  the 
Church  by  the  universal  prevalence  of  scholastic 
dialectics  and  metaphysical  theology. 

§  144.  The  great  religious  revolution,  which  we 
call  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was 
preceded  and  promoted  by  an  intellectual  or  lite 
rary  revolution,  known  in  history  as  the  Revival  of 
Letters,  i.  e.  an  awakened  interest  in  ancient,  and 
especially  in  Greek  and  Latin,  learning.  A  mighty 
impulse  was  imparted  to  this  movement  by  the 
conquest  of  Constantinople  by  the  Turks,  and  the 
downfall  of  the  Eastern  Empire  (A.  D.  1453),  which 
scattered  educated  Greeks  all  over  Western  Europe, 
and  especially  through  Italy,  who  thus  became  the 
teachers  of  the  western  nations,  and  by  exciting  an 
enthusiastic  zeal  for  the  Greek  classics,  produced 

§  144.  What  is  meant  by  the  Revival  of  Letters  ?     What  great 
political  event  hastened  it?     How? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  131 

indirectly  an.  analogous  effect  in  favour  of  Latin 
and  even  Hebrew  studies. 

§  145.  The  Eevival  of  Letters,  although  provi 
dentially  conducive  to  the  greater  Reformation 
which  ensued,  was  not  itself  a  religious  movement. 
Some  of  its  leaders,  especially  in  Italy,  were  open 
infidels,  and  some  affected  to  desire  the  restoration 
of  the  classical  mythology.  Even  Popes  and  Car 
dinals  could  talk  and  write  about  the  gods  as  fami 
liarly  as  any  ancient  heathen.  And  some,  who 
did  not  go  so  far,  still  sought  the  revival  of  letters 
for  its  own  sake,  whence  the  whole  class  took  the 
name  of  humanists,  or  devotees  of  Liter®  Huma- 
niorcs,  as  distinguished  from  the  barbarous  scholas 
tics,  or  illiterate  priests  and  monks  of  the  same 
period,  some  of  whom  are  said  to  have  denounced 
the  Hebrew  Bible  and  Greek  Testament  as  recent 
and  heretical  inventions. 

§  146.  Some  of  the  Humanists,  especially  in 
Germany  and  Holland,  from  previous  habit  or 
ecclesiastical  position,  gave  particular  attention  to 
the  Biblical  part  of  ancient  learning ;  a  few,  such 
as  Caprio  or  lieuchlin,  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  a 

§  145.  Was  the  Revival  of  Letters  a  religious  movement  ? 
What  was  the  religious  ppirit  of  some  of  its  leaders  ?  Who  were 
the  Humanists  ? 


132  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

greater  number  to  the  Greek  Testament,  editing 
the  text,  translating,  annotating,  with  the  great  ad 
vantage  of  familiar  acquaintance  with,  the  Greek 
and  Latin  classics.  The  most  eminent  of  this 
class  was  Erasmus,  the  most  elegant  of  modern 
Latin  writers,  a  devoted  admirer  of  the  Greek  clas 
sics,  to  whom  the  world  is  indebted  for  excellent 
translations  and  editions  of  the  Fathers,  for  the 
earliest  series  of  Greek  Testaments,  on  which  the 
common  text  is  founded,  and  for  a  paraphrase  of 
the  New  Testament  still  unequalled  in  that  kind  of 
literature. 

§  147.  But  Erasmus,  while  contributing  in  this 
way  to  the  Reformation,  was  a  Humanist  at  heart, 
devoted  more  to  learning  than  religion,  and  meas 
uring  even  the  Scriptures  by  a  classical  and  heathen 
standard.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  with 
all  his  devotion  to  New  Testament  criticism  and  in 
terpretation,  he  could  speak  of  a  "  sermo  apostolo- 
rum,  non  saluni  impolitus  et  inconditus,  verum 
etiam  imperfectus  et  perturb atis,  aliquoties  plane 
soloecissans,"  and  that  later  writers,  far  less  compe- 


§  146.  Who  were  the  Biblical  Humanists?  Who  was  the  most 
eminent  among  them  ?  How  did  he  contribute  to  the  reform  ? 

§  147.  What  were  his  real  motives?  What  was  his  highest 
standard  ?  How  does  he  describe  the  style  of  the  New  Testament? 
How  was  this  idea  carried  out  by  others  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  133 

tent  to  judge,  and  less  entitled  to  be  heard,  spoke 
in  still  more  exaggerated  terms  of  the  solecisms  and 
barbarisms  of  the  sacred  writers,  arising  from  their 
ignorance  of  classic  Greek,  and  from  their  Jewish 
education. 

§  148.  Far  more  moderate  and  just  was  the 
judgment  of  two  other  eminent  Greek  scholars  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  Theodore  Beza  and  Henry 
Stephens,  also  connected  with  the  history  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  The  former,  in  writ 
ing  on  the  gift  of  tongues,  admits  the  Hebraisms  of 
the  sacred  writers,  but  regards  them  as  beauties 
(gemmas)  and  as  more  expressive  of  the  truth  than 
any  other  forms  of  speech  could  be.  The  latter,  in 
the  preface  to  his  edition  of  15YG,  gives  the  same 
decision,  and  exclaims  against  those  "  qui  in  his 
scripturis  inculta  omnia  et  horrida  esse  putant." 
But,  notwithstanding  these  authorities,  the  super 
cilious  judgment  of  Erasmus  still  continued  to  be 
echoed  by  a  series  of  inferior  writers. 

§  149.  This  continued  through  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  the  first  quarter  of  the  seventeenth, 
but  then  a  violent  reaction  took  place,  marked  by 


§  148.  What  \vas  the  testimony  of  Theodore  Beza  and  Ilcnry 
Stephens  ?     How  was  it  opposed  by  others  ? 

§  149.  How  long  did  this  opposition  last  ?    What  reaction  fol- 


134:  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEBATUKE. 

the  appearance  of  Sebastian  Pfochen's  Diatribe  de 
linguse  Graecse  Novum  Testamentum  puritate  (Am 
sterdam,  1629),  followed  by  other  writers  upon  both 
sides,  two  of  the  ablest  being  Heinsius  for,  and 
Gataker  against,  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament : 
while  Olearius  and  Leusden  held  the  middle  ground, 
that  although  it  had  many  Hebrew  idioms,  and  a 
general  Hebrew  modification,  it  was  still  Greek. 
The  controversy  lasted  a  whole  century  in  the  Ke- 
formed  Church,  and  then  began  afresh  in  the  Lu 
theran,  where  it  continued  many  years. 

§  150.  The  extreme  grounds  taken  by  the  He 
braists  and  Purists,  as  these  parties  called  them 
selves,  w^ere  equally  untenable ;  the  one  maintain 
ing  that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  was  no 
Greek  at  all,  but  a  barbarous  Jewish  jargon ;  while 
the  other  held  that  it  was  pure  and  elegant  accord 
ing  to  the  highest  classical  standard.  Both  pro 
ceeded  also  on  fallacious  principles ;  the  Hebraists 
assuming  that  the  presence  of  strange  idioms  and 
of  a  local  tinge  could  destroy  the  identity  of  the 


lowed  ?  "What  may  be  regarded  as  the  opening  of  the  strife  ? 
Who  followed  on  both  sides  ?  What  middle  ground  was  taken,  and 
by  whom  ?  How  long  did  the  controversy  last,  and  where  ? 

§  150.  What  were  the  parties  called  ?  What  were  their  extreme 
grounds?  What  was  the  false  assumption  of  the  Hebraists?  What 
was  that  of  the  Purists?  Why  was  bad  Greek  "not  derogatory  to 


NEW   TESTAMENT  LITERATURE.  135 

language  ;  the  Pnrists  that  it  was  derogatory  to  the 
Scriptures  to  admit  that  they  contained  bad  Greek. 
This  was  only  true  upon  the  supposition  that  by 
"  bad  "  was  meant  a  language  not  adapted  to  an 
swer  its  great  purpose  of  expressing  thought  and 
conveying  truth,  but  not  if  it  merely  meant  the 
violation  of  some  conventional  factitious  standard  ; 
just  as  a  house  would  be  too  lad  for  a  church,  if 
men  could  neither  see  nor  hear  nor  obtain  shelter 
in  it,  but  not  if  it  were  only  bad  in  the  aesthetic 
sense  of  not  being  Gothic,  with  pointed  arches  and 
painted  windows.  These  extremes  conduced  to  the 
ultimate  triumph  of  the  middle  ground  already 
mentioned,  and  which  was  finally  expressed  in  Er- 
nesti's  dictum,  that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  is  composed  of  a  classical  and  Hebrew  ele 
ment,  and  that  they  are  only  to  be  pitied  who 
maintain  that  it  is  all  good  Greek  [that  is,  accord 
ing  to  the  Attic  standard]. 

§  151.  One  incidental  good  resulting  from  this 
long  and  apparently  pedantic  quarrel,  was  the  vast 
accumulation  of  real  or  pretended  Hebraisms  on  the 
one  side,  and  of  classical  parallels  upon  the  other, 
which  could  only  be  collected  in  the  course  of 

the  Scriptures"?  In  what  case  would  it  be  so?  What  is  the  real 
case  ?  How  may  this  be  illustrated  ?  Which  opinion  ultimately 
triumphed  ?  What  was  Ernesti's  dictum  ? 


136  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

many  years  and  by  a  multitude  of  hands,  and 
which  have  since  afforded  the  materials  of  many 
valuable  works,  such  as  Lambert  Bos  on  the  Greek 
Ellipsis ;  various  illustrations  from  the  usage  of 
particular  Greek  writers  by  Raphelius,  Kypke, 
Schoetgen,  Yalckenaer,  Krebs  and  others  ;  and.  the 
later  lexicons  and  grammars,  some  of  which  will  be 
particularly  mentioned  in  another  place.  (See  be 
low,  §  162). 

§  152.  Since  the  days  of  Ernesti  the  old  school 
of  Purists  has  been  quite  extinct,  and  that  of  ex 
treme  Hebraists  nominally  also  ;  but  there  has  not 
been  wanting  a  strong  tendency,  especially  in  writ 
ers  of  a  lower  rank,  to  multiply  such  idioms  un 
duly,  and  to  seek  them  where  some  other  explana 
tion,  is  sufficient  and  more  natural.  The  great 
reformer  of  this  last  abuse  is  George  Benedict 
Winer,  the  chief  glory  of  whose  life  is  the  success 
with  which  he  has  defined  and  held  possession  of 
the  true  mean  between  all  extremes,  rejecting 
equally  unfounded  claims  to  classical  correctness  and 
gratuitous  assumptions  of  exotic  idioms,  where  the 

§  151.  What  incidental  good  arose  from  this  controversy? 
What  important  works  have  thus  been  brought  into  existence  ? 

§  152.  What  has  been  the  state  of  the  question  since  Ernesti? 
What  abuse  has  still  boen  practised  ?  Who  reformed  it  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  137 

form  of  speech  is  really  pure  Greek,  or  common  to 
all  cultivated  languages. 

§  153.  It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  merit 
of  Winer  did  not  lie  in  the  discovery  or  demonstra 
tion  of  any  new  principle,  but  simply  in  applying, 
with  consummate  skill,  the  one  already  fixed  as  the 
result  of  the  investigations  and  discussions  of  the 
two  preceding  centuries,  reducing  the  number  of 
alleged  Hebrew  idioms  on  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other  reaffirming  some  which  the  Purists  had  de 
nied.  This  process,  from  its  very  nature,  can  be 
only  an  approximate  one,  as  men  of  equal  learning 
and  capacity  may  still  differ  as  to  the  existence  of 
a  foreign  idiom  in  a  given  case,  and  no  man's  judg 
ment  can  be  absolutely  binding  upon  others  as  to 
all  such  cases,  though  undoubtedly  correct  in  most, 
especially  when  uttered  by  a  writer  of  such  philo 
logical  precision,  logical  intellect,  severe  taste,  and 
superior  tact,  as  all  acknowledge  to  have  met  in 
Winer. 

§  154.  Another  fact  of  some  importance  in  defin 
ing  his  position,  is,  that  while  he  fully  recognized 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  as  genuine  or 

§  153.  What  was  and  was  not  Winer's  real  merit?  Why  could 
not  his  work  be  absolutely  finished  ?  What  were  his  qualifications 
for  it  ? 


138  NEW  TESTAMENT   LITEKATUEE. 

real  Greek,  the  identity  of  which  could  not  be  viti 
ated  by  its  pervading  Jewish  tinge  or  Hebrew 
idioms,  especially  when  these  had  been  reduced  at 
least  to  probable  dimensions ;  he  still  denied  to  it 
the  name  of  a  Greek  dialect,  and  gave  it  the  generic 
one  of  Idiom  (Sprachidiom),  by  which  he  seems  to 
mean  the  aggregate  of  insulated  and  detached  de 
partures  from  the  standard  of  a  strictly  correct 
usage,  having  no  organic  unity  or  common  charac 
ter,  arising  from  the  action  of  like  causes,  as  in  the 
case  of  local  or  provincial  dialects,  like  those  of 
ancient  Greece.  And  yet  the  germ  of  this  last 
theory  is  found  in  Winer's  own  great  work,  but 
only  as  it  were  in  passing,  and  without  a  due  effect 
upon  his  practice.  The  full  development  of  this 
idea  in  its  bearings  upon  exegesis,  was  reserved  for 
younger  and  less  practised  hands. 

§  155.  To  II.  J.  Thiersch  is  commonly  assigned 
the  praise  of  having  first  broached,  or  more  prob 
ably  matured,  the  now  prevailing  notion  of  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  as  a  co-ordinate  and 
independent  dialect,  determined  in  its  origin  and 
character  by  causes  quite  analogous  to  those  which 

§  154.  What  did  Winer  still  deny  as  to  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  ?  What  is  the  difference  between  idiom  and  dialect  ? 
Where  is  the  germ  of  the  modern  doctrine  to  be  found  ? 

§  155.  Who  first  developed  it  ?     What  is  the  new  theory  ? 


NEW   TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE.  130 

brought  into  existence  the  old  dialects  of  Greece  it 
self,  and  equally  productive  in  both  cases  of  a  sub 
stantive,  organic  oneness,  as  remote  as  possible 
from  simple  aggregation  of  peculiar  idioms,  whether 
few  or  many. 

§  156.  This,  though  it  may  not  seem  so  at  first 
sight,  is  a  decided  step  in  advance  of  the  old  doc 
trine,  even  as  exhibited  by  Winer,  and  of  great  im 
portance  in  its  bearing  on  the  critical  and  learned 
study  of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  It  is  one  thing 
to  regard  their  confessed  peculiarities  even  as  inno 
cent  or  unavoidable  departures  from  the  standard 
of  correct  Greek  usage,  and  quite  another  thing 
both  in  itself  and  in  its  influence  upon  the  student, 
to  regard  the  same  peculiarities  as  part  and  parcel 
of  a  definite  local  and  provincial  dialect,  as  truly 
living  and  as  truly  Greek  as  the  Attic  or  Ionic. 
The  most  admirable  thoughts  expressed  in  broken 
or  exotic  English,  may  command  our  intellectual 
respect  and  moral  reverence,  but  cannot  possibly 
excite  our  literary  or  aesthetic  admiration,  and  al 
though  this  is  not  essential  to  the  highest  ends  of 
language,  it  materially  lessens  its  enjoyment  by  the 

§  15C.  Why  is  this  an  advance  even  upon  Winer's  doctrine? 
State  the  difference  between  them  ?  How  may  this  be  illustrated 
from  our  own  language  ?  How  may  the  illustrations  be  applied  ? 


140  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

reader,  -in  proportion  to  his  native  taste  or  cultiva 
tion.  So  in  the  case  before  us,  the  most  firm  be 
liever  in  the  inspiration  of  these  writings,  may  be 
pardoned  for  perusing  them  with  less  zest,  of  a  lite 
rary  kind  at  least,  when  lie  believes  them  to  be 
written  in  genuine  but  bad  Greek,  even  in  the 
lower  sense  of  this  expression,  than  when  he  is 
permitted  to  regard  them  as  invaluable  samples  of 
a  dialect  as  noble,  in  its  way,  as  Attic  or  Ionic. 

§  157.  I  say  as  noble  in  its  way,  because  it 
would  of  course  be  preposterous  to  claim  for  it  the 
qualities  described  as  Attic  purity,  Ionic  suavity, 
or  Doric  strength  ;  for  these  are  to  be  measured  by 
a  standard  of  their  own,  which  is  esentially  conven 
tional  and  artificial,  because  resting  on  a  variable 
taste  and  usage.  But  in  reference  to  the  highest 
end  of  language,  to  convey  thought  and  reveal 
truth,  this  despised  patois,  as  some  have  deemed  it, 
may  be  just  as  perfect  as  the  Greek  of  Plato  ; 
while  in  reference  to  the  truths  revealed,  they  are 
immeasurably  higher ;  and  this  grandeur  of  the 
thoughts  conveyed  cannot  fail  to  dignify  and  sub 
limate  the  vehicle  itself.  ~No  language,  even  the 

§  157.  In  what  sense  must  the  Hellenistic  be  inferior  to  the 
Attic  and  other  ancient  dialects?  In  what  sense  may  it  be  supe 
rior  ?  How  may  this  be  illustrated  by  analogy  ? 


NEW    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

most  meagre  and  inelegant,  can  be  successfully 
employed  for  the  expression  of  the  highest  truths, 
without  being  in  itself  ennobled.  If  an  ordinary 
missionary,  who  translates  into  the  jargon  of  some 
African  or  Indian  tribe,  the  sublimest  doctrines  of 
the  true  faith,  thereby  changes  its  whole  character, 
how  could  such  an  one  as  Paul,  in  the  power  of  his 
logic  and  the  fervour  of  his  eloquence,  controlled 
and  prompted  by  his  inspiration,  fail  to  bring  even 
Attic  Greek  still  nearer  to  perfection,  at  least  as  the 
expression  of  those  glorious  truths,  which  neither 
Plato  nor  Demosthenes,  if  suddenly  apprised  of 
them,  could  possibly  have  uttered. 

§  158.  We  may  safely  rest  then  in  the  paradox 
ical  but  just  conclusion  of  some  recent  German 
writers,  both  philologists  and  church-historians, 
that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  may  claim 
not  only  a  co-ordinate  position  with  the  old  Greek 
dialects,  as  an  organic  form  of  the  same  language, 
but  a  place  still  higher,  when  considered  as  the 
dress,  the  channel,  or  the  vehicle  of  saving  truth. 
At  the  same  time  we  may  question  or  repudiate  the 
undue  refinements  of  the  same  school  in  attempting 
to  discriminate  the  shifting  preponderance  of  the 


§  158.  "What  is  the  conclusion  of  the  latest  German  writers? 
With  what  caution  must  it  be  received  ? 


142  XEW   TESTAMENT   LITEEATUEE. 

classical  and  Hellenistic  elements,  not  only  in  the 
different  books,  but  in  the  same  books  when  the 
tone  or  subject  changes.* 

§  159.  It  is  this  noble  dialect,  of  Greek  extrac 
tion,  but  of  Christian  birth,  the  history  of  which  we 
have  been  thus  far  tracing,  and  the  main  peculiari 
ties  of  which  we  must  now  philologically  analyze. 
These  peculiarities  fall  into  two  great  classes,  the 
Lexicographical,  relating  to  the  sense  of  words,  and 
the  Grammatical,  relating  to  their  formal  changes 
and  syntactical  construction.  In  investigating  both 
it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  both  to  save  time  and  facil 
itate  the  process  by  resorting  to  those  writers  who 
present  with  most  authority  and  clearness  the  re 
sults  of  the  great  controversy  which  has  been  de 
scribed,  and  the  gigantic  labours  which  grew  out  of 
it.  From  the  earlier  and  more  minute  attention 
paid  at  first  to  lexicography,  these  helps  are  more 
abundant  with  respect  to  this  department  than  to 
that  of  grammar. 

*  This  caveat  is  necessary  even  with  respect  to  the  admirable 
chapter  on  the  subject  in  Schaff's  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church 
(German  ed.  §  134,  English  ed.  §  153). 

§  159.  How  are  we  now  to  investigate  this  dialect?  How  may 
its  peculiarities  be  classified?  How  may  we  best  conduct  the  in 
vestigation  ?  In  which  department  are  the  helps  more  numerous, 
and  \vhv? 


XliW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  143 

§  160.  Leaving  wholly  out  of  view  the  many 
works  of  older  date,  which  have  now  been  super 
seded  and  almost  forgotten,  I  may  mention  as  the 
first  direct  attempt  to  gather  up  the  fruits  of  the 
great  controversy,  Schleusner*  s  Lexicon  in  N.  T.  / 
originally  published  in  1792,  soon  after  the  solution 
of  the  long  vexed  question,  and  in  a  fourth  edition, 
1819,  during  which  period,  of  nearly  thirty  years, 
it  was  the  standard  and  authoritative  work,  though 
more  remarkable  for  crude  and  undigested  learning 
than  for  scientific  method  or  exact  philology.  Su 
perior  in  both,  as  well  as  in  the  richness  of  its  clas 
sical  citations,  was  the  Clams  N.  T.  Philologica 
of  Wahl,  the  first  edition  of  which  synchronizes 
with  the  last  of  Schleusncr  (1819),  while  a  third 
appeared  as  late  as  1813.  But  long  before  this 
there  arose  a  new  lexicographer,  J3retsclineider, 
whose  Lexicon  Manudle  in  JV.  T.  (first  edition, 
1824  ;  third  edition,  1840),  performed  the  same 
work  as  to  Hellenistic  writers  which  had  been  per 
formed  by  Wahl  as  to  the  classics.  The  Clams 
N.  T.  Philologica  of  Wilke  (1841),  is  simply  an 
improvement  upon  both  these  in  philological  com- 


§  160.  What  may  be  entirely  omitted  in  enumerating  the  helps? 
What  was  the  first  lexicon  which  presented  the  results  of  the  great 
controversy  ?  What  was  its  influence  ?  What  were  its  defects  ? 
What  was  the  peculiar  merit  of  Wahl  ?  What  of  Bretsehneider? 


144  NEW   TESTAMENT   LITERATURE. 

pleteness,  but  without  any  very  novel  features  of 
its  own.  All  these  were  neologists  or  rationalists, 
more  or  less  decided.  Soon  after  the  appearance 
of  "VVahl's  first  edition,  it  was  translated  into  Eng 
lish  by  Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  now  of  New  York, 
then  of  Andover  (1825),  who,  ten  years  later,  pub 
lished  a  lexicon  under  his  own  name  (1835).  What 
he  had  done  for  Wahl,  Dr.  S.  T.  Bloomfield  did  for 
him,  i.  e.  he  edited  Robinson's  lexicon  in  London 
(1837),  and  a  few  years  after  brought  out  one  of  his 
own  (1840),  the  latest  edition  of  which  (that  I  have 
seen)  appeared  in  1845  ;  that  of  Robinson  in  1850. 
None  of  these  books  should  be  allowed  to  supersede 
the  general  Greek  lexicon  in  study ;  first,  because 
the  latter  gives  a  wider  view  of  classical  usage ; 
and  secondly,  because  the  former  exercise  too  much 
authority  in  exposition,  although  less  suspected 
than  avowed  interpreters. 

§  161.  Into  the  scale  against  these  many  lexi 
cons,  I  throw  a  single  grammar,  the  Grammatik 
des  Neutestamentichen  Sprachidioms  of  Winer  (first 
edition,  1822  ;  sixth  edition,  1855),  which,  for  a 
full  third  of  a  century,  a  whole  generation  of 

What  is  the  character  of  Wilkes1  Clavis  ?  What  was  the  religious 
position  of  the  men  ?  What  was  the  origin  of  Robinson's  lexicon  ? 
What  was  that  of  BloomfielcTs  ? 

S  161.  What  has  been  the   one   standard  Greek   for   the  last 


NEW  TESTAMENT   LITERATURE.  145 

human  life,  has  been  unanimously  recognized  in 
Germany,  and  more  slowly  in  other  countries,  as 
the  standard  and  authoritative  exposition  of  the 
theory  which  has  been  described  already  as  the 
final  product  of  the  Hebraist  and  Purist  contro 
versy.  Besides  an  English  version  of  the  first  edi 
tion  by  Professors  Stuart  and  Eobinson,  and  a 
New  Testament  grammar  of  the  former,  based  on 
Winer's,  but  intended  to  answer  the  purpose  of  a 
general  Greek  grammar,  the  original  work  was 
translated  in  this  country  about  twenty  years  ago, 
but  was  found  to  be  so  hastily  and  incorrectly  exe 
cuted,  that  its  use  has  long  been  discontinued.  A 
new  translation  by  Edward  Masson,  M.  A.,  "  for 
merly  professor  in  the  University  of  Athens,"  has 
appeared  this  year  in  England,  and  simultaneously 
in  Philadelphia.  This  translation  is  far  superior  to 
the  other,  and  as  nearly  perfect  as  is  necessary  for 
our  purpose. 

§  162.  Out  of  Winer's  grammar,  some  years 
after  its  appearance,  Professor  Stuart  framed  an 
elementary  Greek  grammar,  intended  to  embrace 
the  valuable  substance  of  the  former,  but  without 
original  or  independent  value.  In  1842  appeared 

third  of  a  century  ?  When  was  it  first  translated?  What  became 
of  this  translation?  Who  has  recently  translated  it?  Where  has 
it  been  republished? 

7 


146  NEW  TESTAMENT   LITEKATUKE. 

in  England  a  Treatise  on  New  Testament  Gram 
mar,  by  Thomas  Sheldon  Green,  an  accomplished 
classical  scholar  and  teacher,  not  claiming  to  be  a 
complete  system,  but  full  of  profound  grammatical 
philosophy  and  nice  discrimination,  illustrated  by 
a  wide  and  copious  reading  of  the  classics,  and  al 
though  wholly  independent  of  Winer  (of  whose  ex 
istence  it  betrays  no  knowledge),  constantly  tend 
ing  to  the  same  conclusions,  and  sometimes  going- 
further  in  the  same  direction. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 


§  1.  THE  most  important  preliminaries  to  this 
study  may  be  conveniently  reduced  to  six  heads  or 
topics — 1.  Definitions.  2.  Relations.  3.  Uses.  4. 
Sources.  5.  History.  6.  Method. 

§  2.  The  first  of  these  includes  the  answer  to 
two  questions — {a)  What  is  ecclesiastical  history  ? — 
(b)  How  far  does  it  extend  ? 

§  3.  In  all  such  cases  it  is  best  to  begin  with  the 
etymology  of  terms,  when  this  can  be  determined 
without  recondite  research  or  fanciful  conjecture. 

§  4.  The  English  word  history  is  derived,  through 
the  Latin  historic^,  from  the  Greek  i<rropia,  which, 
according  to  its  etymology  and  primary  usage,  de 
notes  information,  knowledge  gained  by  inquiry, 
with  particular  reference  to  matters  of  fact,  and 


150  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

by  a  further  limitation,  to  events  or   actual   oc 
currences. 

§  5.  This  last  is  the  invariable  usage  of  our  own 
word,  perhaps  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
technical  phrase  "  Natural  History,"  in  which  the 
term  retains  its  original  and  wider  meaning. 

§  6.  Some  modern  writers  make  a  distinction  be 
tween  Objective  and  Subjective  History,,  the  first 
denoting  the  events  themselves,  the  second  their 
recital  or  exhibition,  either  viva  voce  or  in  writing. 

§  7.  When  we  say  that  prophecy  is  verified  in 
history,  we  use  the  word  in  its  objective  sense ;  but 
when  we  say  that  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  are 
elucidated  by  the  history  of  Greece,  it  is  subjective. 

§  8.  It  is  only  with  subjective  history  that  we  are 
concerned  as  a  science,  or  a  subject  of  instruction, 
which  may  be  defined  the  science  of  events,  or  the 
methodical  and  rational  investigation  of  what  has 
actually  taken  place  ;  the  methodical  or  systematic 
form  distinguishing  history,  properly  so  called  from 
chronicles  or  annals,  which  are  mere  collections  of 
historical  material. 

§  0.  History,  as  thus  defined,  is  necessarily  un 
bounded,  and  can  never  be  exhausted,  since  some- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  151 

tiling  may  be  added  still  to  the  most  copious  his 
torical  account,  even  of  a  day  or  hour. 

§  10.  It  follows  that  all  history  must  be  eclectic, 
in  the  sense  of  presupposing  or  involving  a  selec 
tion  from  the  great  mass  of  accessible  materials. 

§  11.  The  vast  field  of  history  may  be  reduced, 
without  detracting  from  its  value,  by  the  twofold 
process  of  (a)  Elimination  and  (5)  Division. 

§  12.  Elimination,  as  here  used,  is  the  exclusion 
of  some  element,  belonging  to  the  subject  in  its 
widest  definition,  but  not  essential  to  its  practical 
utility  or  purpose. 

§  13.  We  may  thus  eliminate  from  history,  as  a 
subject  of  investigation,  all  that  does  not  relate  to 
the  human  subject,  such  as  natural  history  and 
angelic  history,  as  well  as  all  that  relates  merely  to 
the  individual,  and  constitutes  Biography,  so  far  as 
this  can  be  distinguished  from  History,  of  which  it 
is,  in  fact,  a  species. 

§  14.  Division  differs  from  Elimination  in  exclud 
ing  no  entire  element  of  history,  but  merely  one  or 
more  of  its  parts,  by  an  arbitrary  or  conventional 
arrangement. 

§  15.  Such  division  may  be  merely  mechanical, 


152  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOBY. 

as  in  the  case  of  Ancient  and  Modern  History, 
wlrich  differ  not  at  all  in  kind,  but  only  in  chron 
ology  ;  or  rational,  as  in  the  case  of  National  His 
tory  ;  or  that  of  particular  professions,  sciences,  or 
doctrines. 

§  16.  Among  the  innumerable  possible  divisions 
of  General  or  Universal  History,  one  of  the  most 
obvious  and  important  is  the  old  distinction  be 
tween  Civil  and  Religious  History,  the  first  relating 
to  men's  temporal  interests  and  mutual  relations, 
the  second  to  their  spiritual  interests  and  relations 
to  their  God,  which  cannot  be  entirely  divorced, 
but  may  predominate  in  different  degrees,  so  as  to 
give  character  and  name  to  these  two  kinds  of 
history. 

§  17.  Under  the  genus  of  Religious  History,  the 
most  extensive  and  important  species  is  the  History 
of  the  Church,  which  is  indeed  almost  the  same 
thing,  since  all  the  topics  of  Religious  History  may 
be  included  in  Church  History,  except  perhaps  the 
history  of  personal  religion  and  a  few  particulars  of 
still  less  moment. 

§  18,  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  Church  His 
tory,"  or  rather  its  extent  of  application,  will  depend 
upon  that  of  the  term  "  Church,"  which  although 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOKY.  153 

absolutely  used  to  mean  the  Christian  Church,  as 
such,  admits  of  a  much  wider  application. 

§  19.  The  word  church  has  been  derived  by  some 
from  a  Celtic  root  (cyrch  or  cylch}  meaning  centre 
and  then  rallying-point  or  rendezvous ;  but  much 
more  probably  by  most  writers  from  a  Greek 
phrase  (oiKia  or  e/c/cXTja-ia  /cvpiaKi])  meaning  tho 
Lord's  House  or  Congregation. 

§  20.  "We  are  concerned  with  it,  however,  only  aa 
a  modern  version  of  a  Greek  word  (e/e/eX^o-ta)  de 
rived  from  a  verb  (e/e/eaXeo>)  meaning  to  evoke  or 
call  out,  but  suggesting  also  the  idea  of  convoking 
or  calling  together  as  an  organized  body. 

§  21.  The  Greek  noun  is  applied  in  the  classics  to 
the  political  or  legislative  bodies  of  the  Grecian 
states,  particularly  Athens  ;  in  the  Septuagint  ver 
sion  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  the  congregation  of 
Israel,  considered  as  the  chosen  people  ;  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  the  same  body  as  reorganized  on 
a  Christian  basis  at  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

§  22.  The  widest  application  of  the  phrase 
"  Church  History  "  depends  upon  the  question,  how 
long  there  has  been  a  body  in  existence  correspond 
ing  to  the  essential  definition  of  €Ktc\v)<ria9  i.  e.  one 


154:  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

called  out  from  the  mass  of  men,  and  called  to 
gether  in  a  separate  society,  by  divine  authority, 
and  for  a  religious  purpose. 

§  23.  It  is  evident  from  Scripture  that  such  a  so 
ciety  existed  long  before  the  day  of  Pentecost,  be 
fore  the  Advent  of  our  Lord,  before  the  Babylonish 
Captivity,  the  reign  of  David,  the  Conquest  of 
Canaan,  the  Mosaic  Legislation,  the  calling  of  Abra 
ham,  the  Universal  Deluge. 

§  24.  Its  existence  may  be  traced  back  to  the 
Protevangelium,  or  first  promise  of  a  Saviour  (Gen. 
3,  15),  with  the  accompanying  prophecy  of  mutual 
hostility  for  ages  between  two  great  parties,  "  the 
seed  of  the  serpent,"  represented  by  Satan,  and 
"  the  seed  of  the  woman,"  represented  by  Christ. 

§  25.  The  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  gives  colour 
or  complexion  to  all  history,  in  which  the  opposi 
tion  or  antithesis  of  Church  and  World  can  be  dis 
tinctly  traced  from  age  to  age,  beginning  with  the 
contrast  between  Cain  and  Abel,  followed  by  that 
between  the  posterity  of  Cain  and  Seth,  until  con 
founded  by  the  impious  amalgamation  of  the  "  sons 
of  God  "  and  "  daughters  of  men,"  which  led  to  the 
general  corruption  of  jnankind  and  their  destruc 
tion  by  a  deluge ;  then  reappearing  in  the  family 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  155 

of  E"oali  and  the  line  of  Shem,  made  still  more 
marked  by  the  calling  of  Abraham,  to  be  the  father 
of  a  separate  race,  and  permanently  fixed  by  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  ceremonially  distinguishing  the 
chosen  people,  even  externally,  from  every  other, 
till  the  Advent  of  Messiah  and  the  change  of  dis 
pensations. 

§  26.  Since  then  a  church  or  chosen  people  has 
existed  in  all  ages,  the  idea  of  church  history  must 
be  equally  extensive,  reaching  from  the  Fall  of 
Man,  or  his  ensuing  restoration,  to  the  present 
moment,  and  this  last  is  a  variable  fluctuating  point, 
it  is  continually  growing  in  extent,  as  every  day 
adds  something  to  the  field  and  the  materials  of 
history. 

§  27.  The  extent  of  the  subject  being  still  unman 
ageably  great,  it  may  be  conveniently  divided,  not 
by  a  mechanical  and  arbitrary  process,  but  on  prin 
ciples  arising  from  its  very  nature. 

§  28.  The  primary  division  is  into  two  great  parts, 
which  may  be  designated  Biblical  and  Ecclesias 
tical  History,  the  latter  comprehending  all  that  is 
not  recorded  in  the  AYord  of  God. 

§  29.  The  difference  between  these  two  parts  is 
not  merely  circumstantial,  but  essential,  being  that 


156  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

between  inspired  and  uninspired  history  ;  a  ready- 
made  authoritative  record,  and  one  to  be  con 
structed  from  diversified  materials  by  human  skill 
and  labour  ;  the  one  requiring  mere  interpretation, 
while  the  other  calls  for  a  dissimilar  and  far  more 
complicated  process.  The  application  of  the  same 
mode  of  treatment  to  materials  so  unlike,  has  al 
ways  been  the  cause  or  the  effect  of  sceptical  mis 
givings,  if  not  of  avowed  unbelief  in  the  divine 
authority  of  Scripture. 

§  30.  As  an  additional  facility  in  study  and  in 
vestigation,  Biblical  History  may  be  subdivided 
into  that  of  the  Old  and  that  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  although  the  difference  is  here  a  circum 
stantial  one,  implying  no  diversity  of  inspiration 
or  authority,  but  only  one  of  date,  language, 
and  specific  form,  requiring  some  diversity  of 
method  for  the  illustration  and  interpretation  of 
these  two  great  subdivisions  of  the  Sacred  History. 

§  31.  The  three  divisions  of  Church  History  thus 
arising  (Old  Testament,  New  Testament,  and  Eccle 
siastical),  are  exceedingly  unequal  in  their  chrono 
logical  dimensions,  the  first  comprising  about  forty 
centuries,  the  third  eighteen,  the  second  less  than 
one,  but  claiming  full  -equality  of  time  and  atten 
tion,  on  the  ground  of  its  absolute  importance, 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  157 

springing  from  the  dignity  of  its  subject,  the  Life 
of  Christ  and  the  Acts  of  his  Apostles,  and  on  that 
of  its  relative  importance,  as  the  winding  up  of  the 
Old  Testament  History,  and  the  foundation  of  Ec 
clesiastical  History,  without  which  both  would  be 
incomprehensible  and  worthless. 

§  32.  According  to  these  definitions  and  distinc 
tions,  Ecclesiastical  History  is  the  third  great  di 
vision  of  Church  History  in  the  widest  sense,  be 
ginning  at  the  close  of  the  New  Testament  Canon, 
or  rather  of  the  history  which  it  contains,  and 
reaching  to  the  present  time,  or  stretching  indefi 
nitely  into  the  future. 

§  33.  The  relation  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  as 
thus  defined,  to  Biblical  or  Sacred  History,  is  not 
coincident  with  that  between  the  history  of  the 
New  and  of  the  Old  Dispensation,  since  a  part  of 
both  these  is  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
Gospels  belonging  to  the  one,  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  other  ;  so  that  the  limit  of  the  two 
economics  or  dispensations  does  not  fall  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  but  between  the  two 
historical  divisions  of  the  New. 

§  34:.  This  brings  us  to  the  second  introductory 
question  (see  above,  §  1),  namely,  what  relations 


158  ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY. 

does  Ecclesiastical  History  sustain  to  other  sciences 
or  fields  of  knowledge  ? 

§  35.  Besides  its  relation  to  Biblical  History, 
which  has  just  been  defined,  it  has  points  of  con 
tact  with  a  multitude  of  subjects,  some  of  which 
are  so  near  akin  to  it,  and  practically  so  insepara 
ble  from  it,  that  they  may  be  classed  together  as 
its  cognate  or  auxiliary  sciences.  The  nearest  and 
most  necessary  of  these  helps,  to  which  the  name 
just  mentioned  has  been  commonly  applied,  are 
three  in  number :  1,  Geography ;  2,  Chronology ; 
and  3,  Archaeology. 

§  36.  Historical  Geography  relates  to  the  local 
ities  of  history,  and  ascertains  the  places  where 
events  occurred ;  and  is  therefore  a  subordinate 
auxiliary  science,  since  the  interest  of  the  places 
depends  upon  that  of  the  events,  and  not  vice  versa. 

§  37.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  Chronology,  the 
science  of  dates,  as  these  derive  their  value  from 
the  events,  of  which  they  fix  the  time,  and  not  the 
events  from  them. 

§  38.  The  principal  uses  of  Historical  Chronol 
ogy,  so  called  to  distinguish  it  from  that  which  is 
merely  arithmetical  or  astronomical,  are  to  solve  ap- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  159 

parent  contradictions,  and  to  determine  the  mutual 
relation  of  events,  especially  as  causes  and  effects, 
or  antecedents  and  consequents. 

§  39.  That  the  absolute  chronology,  i.  e.  the  pre 
cise  day  or  even  year,  of  an  event,  however  inter 
esting  it  may  be  and  worthy  of  attention  when  it 
can  be  ascertained,  is  not  essential  to  historical 
truth  or  to  its  beneficial  uses,  may  be  seen  from  the 
familiar  fact,  that  men  not  unfrequently  forget  the 
exact  dates  of  their  own  biography,  without  losing 
their  distinct  impression  of  its  principal  events  in 
their  mutual  relations  and  their  true  succession  ; 
or,  to  borrow  Bossuet's  illustration,  from  the  slight 
effect  of  the  acknowledged  error  in  the  Christian 
era  on  the  history  of  the  last  eighteen  hundred 
years. 


§  40.  Archceology  (from  ap^ato?,  ancient),  the  sci 
ence  of  antiquity  (hence  called  by  the  Latin  name 
Antiquitates),  in  its  widest  sense  embraces  ancient 
history,  as  in  the  Jewish  Archaeology  of  Josephus  ; 
but  in  its  technical  restricted  sense,  relates  to 
usages  or  permanent  conditions,  as  distinguished 
from  events,  which  always  involve  change,  so  that 
nothing  immutable  can  have  a  history,  and  the  best 
tunes  to  live  in  are  the  worst  to  write  about. 


160  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

§  41.  This  distinction,  being  artificial  and  conven 
tional,  cannot  be  rigidly  insisted  on,  since  archae 
ology  and  history  are  partially  inclusive  of  each 
other,  and  are  always  interchanging  their  materials, 
events  becoming  usages  by  repetition,  and  perma 
nent  conditions  being  liable  to  change,  and  thus 
continually  passing  from  the  field  of  archaeology  to 
that  of  history. 

§  42.  But  even  if  they  could  be  kept  apart,  their 
total  separation  would  be  undesirable,  since  they 
are  necessary  to  illustrate  and  complete  each  other ; 
and  accordingly  the  best  historians  are  disposed  to 
reunite  them,  by  admitting  much  into  their  histories 
which  formally  belongs  to  archaeology,  as  in  Ma- 
caulay's  famous  chapter  on  the  change  of  manners 
and  the  mode  of  life  in  England,  which  is  one  of 
the  most  brilliant  and  instructive  portions  of  his 
history. 

§  43.  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities  or  Archaeology  is 
limited  by  arbitrary  modern  usage  to  the  govern 
ment  and  worship  of  the  Church  in  the  first  six 
centuries ;  but  recent  writers  give  it  more  exten 
sion,  among  whom  may  be  mentioned  a  learned 
and  laborious  American  scholar  (Dr.  Lyman  Cole- 
man). 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  161 

§  44.  The  moderns,  and  especially  the  Germans, 
are  accustomed  to  distinguish  many  other  auxiliary 
studies,  such  as  that  of  Statistics,  exhibiting  the 
actual  condition  of  the  world,  or  any  of  its  parts,  as 
to  population,  industry,  wealth,  trade,  &c.,  at  a 
given  time,  in  which  it  differs  both  from  History 
and  Archaeology  ;  Diplomatics,  or  the  art  of  decy- 
phering  and  verifying  documents  ;  Historical  Phi 
lology,  distinguishing  the  dialects  of  different  local 
ities  and  periods  ;  and  many  others,  which  it  is  not 
necessary  to  enumerate,  as  such  distinctions,  if  pur 
sued  too  far,  tend  to  defeat  their  own  design  by 
comprehending  every  thing,  especially  in  this  case, 
where  the  principal  subject,  that  of  History,  has 
really  so  many  points  of  contact  with  the  other 
provinces  of  human  knowledge.  ( Vide  supra, 
§35.) 

§  45.  In  answer  to  the  third  preliminary  question 
— "What  are  the  uses  of  Church  History  ?  For 
what  reason  or  what  purpose,  is  it  to  be  studied  ? — 
the  utility  of  history  in  general  may  be  argued 
from  the  space  which  it  occupies  in  Scripture,  and 
from  the  position  assigned  to  it  in  the  literature  of 
the  wisest  and  most  cultivated  nations,  as  well  as 
in  every  scheme  of  liberal  study,  which  together 
may  be  represented  as  the  testimony  or  the  judg- 


162  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

ment  of  the  civilized  world  throughout  a  course 
of  ages. 

§  46.  The  maxim  that  "  history  is  philosophy 
teaching  by  examples  "  has  sometimes  been  abused, 
by  making  it  the  basis  of  specific  prophecies  or 
prognostications,  which  are  usually  falsified  by  the 
event ;  but  this  abuse  does  not  destroy  the  lawful 
use  of  general  experience,  as  a  source  of 'Correct 
judgments  in  relation  to  the  future ;  just  as  long 
practice  may  be  an  invaluable  guide  to  the  physi 
cian,  though  it  does  not  enable  him  to  predict  with 
certainty  the  issue  even  of  a  single  case. 

§  47.  Of  history  in  general,  and  of  ecclesiastical 
history  in  particular,  it  may  be  said,  that  they 
illustrate,  in  an  eminent  degree,  the  laws  of  the 
divine  administration  ;  evince  the  truth  of  prophecy 
by  showing  its  fulfilment ;  and  in  due  subordina 
tion  to  the  study  of  God's  word  and  of  our  own 
hearts,  furnish  the  best  school  of  human  nature, 
although  commonly  postponed  to  that  of  frivolous 
society  and  superficial  worldly  wisdom. 

§  48.  In  addition  to  these  benefits  of  all  authentic 
history,  that  of  the  church  contributes  to  the  de 
monstration  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  by  con 
trasting  it  with  every  form  of  error,  by  recording  its 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  163 

triumphs  over  enemies  and  obstacles  which  seemed 
invincible,  and  by  showing  its  invariable  moral  in 
fluence  where  it  prevails ;  all  this  in  spite  of  human 
errors  and  corruptions,  not  only  in  the  world,  but 
in  the  church  itself. 

§  49.  Among  the  salutary  moral  influences 
which  have  been  ascribed  to  the  judicious  study  of 
this  subject,  may  be  named  the  elevation  and  en 
largement  of  the  views  beyond  the  petty  bounds  of 
personal,  sectarian,  or  local  interests;  the  conse 
quent  discouragement  of  bigotry,  and  moderation 
of  mere  controversial  zeal,  without  impairing  men's 
attachment  to  the  truth  itself ;  and  lastly,  the  sup 
pression  of  crude  innovations,  both  in  theory  and 
practice,  by  showing  that  the  same,  if  not  in  form 
in  substance,  have  been  canvassed  and  exploded 
centuries  ago.  But  independently  of  all  utilitarian 
considerations,  authentic  history,  as  well  ecclesias 
tical  as  general,  demands  attention  on  account  of 
its  intrinsic  value,  as  a  portion  of  that  truth,  which 
is  the  natural  and  necessary  aliment  of  mind,  and 
which  would  be  entitled  to  regard  on  this  ground, 
if  it  had  no  other  practical  effect  whatever. 

§  50.  The  fourth  preliminary  question  (vide 
supra,  §  1),  is,  From  what  sources,  or  of  what 


164:  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

materials,   is   Ecclesiastical    History   to    be    con 
structed  ? 

§  51.  It  may  be  answered,  in  tlie  general,  first, 
that  according  to  the  very  definition  above  given 
(§  29),  all  the  authorities  are  uninspired  ;  and, 
secondly,  that  they  are  incalculably  numerous  and 
endlessly  diversified. 

§  52.  In  order  to  a  more  particular  and  positive 
solution  of  this  question,  the  materials  and  sources 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  have  been  divided  into  two 
great  classes :  1st,  Monumental ;  and,  2d,  Documen 
tary. 

§  53.  To  the  first  class  belong  all  historical  ma 
terials  or  authorities  not  contained  in  books,  includ 
ing  monuments,  not  only  in  the  narrow  sense  of 
tombs  or  sepulchres,  but  in  the  wide  sense  of  relics 
or  memorials  of  antiquity,  particularly  buildings, 
statues,  paintings,  medals,  coins,  inscriptions. 

§  54.  Aiithorities  of  this  class,  when  extant  and 
accessible,  have  this  advantage,  that  they  are  origi 
nals  ;  whereas,  the  oldest  books  now  extant  are 
mere  copies  of  copies. 

§  55.  The  utility  of  monumental  sources  or  au 
thorities  may  be  exemplified  by  the  arch  of  Titus, 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  165 

still  standing  at  Home,  with,  the  original  carvings, 
representing  the  triumph  of  the  conqueror  of  Jeru 
salem,  from  which  are  derived  our  common  draw 
ings  of  the  sacred  vessels  and  utensils  of  the  temple, 
as  carried  in  procession  upon  that  occasion ;  and 
also  in  a  less  degree  by  the  inscriptions  upon 
ancient  Christian  tombstones,  which  are  built  into 
the  wall  of  a  gallery  of  the  Vatican  museum,  and 
by  which  some  light  is  cast  on  early  customs  and 
conditions  of  society. 

§  5G.  In  Ecclesiastical  History,  however,  Monu 
mental  sources  and  authorities  are  neither  so  abun 
dant  nor  so  valuable  as  the  Documentary,  or  those 
contained  in  books  or  other  writings,  whether  man 
uscript  or  printed. 

§  57.  These  may  again  be  subdivided  into,  1st, 
Private  or  Personal ;  and,  2d,  Public  or  Official. 

§  58.  By  Public  Documents,  in  this  connection, 
are  meant  all  official  acts  of  public  bodies  or  au 
thorities,  having  direct  or  indirect  ecclesiastical  in 
fluence  or  jurisdiction. 

§  59.  The  first  place  among  these  is  due  to  the 
acts  of  councils,  ecumenical  or  national,  who  claimed 
to  represent  the  Church,  and  in  her  name  decided 
questions  both  of  discipline  and  doctrine. 


166  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  60.  Some  idea  of  the  vast  extent  of  these 
materials  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  be 
sides  a  collection  of  these  Acts  of  Councils  in  four 
folio  volumes,  and  another  in  twelve,  there  is  one 
in  eighteen,  one  (the  best,  that  of  Mansi)  in  thirty- 
one,  and  one  in  thirty-seven  folios  ;  not  to  mention 
smaller  works,  containing  only  national  or  local 
councils,  such  as  Wilkin's  Concilia  Magnse  Britan 
nia  et  Ilibernise  (4  vols.  fol.). 

§  61.  Another  class  of  these  material,  inferior  in 
authority,  but  of  great  historical  value,  are  the  Acts 
of  the  Popes,  or  of  the  Papal  See — the  Regesta — 
the  Corpus  Juris  Canonic! — the  Briefs — the  Bulls — 
and  the  Decretals. 

.  §  62.  To  give  some  idea,  as  before,  of  the  extent 
of  these  materials,  it  may  be  stated  that,  although 
the  Regesta,  prior  to  the  close  of  the  twelfth  cen 
tury,  are  lost,  those  belonging  to  the  next  four  cen 
turies  are  said  to  be  preserved  in  the  Vatican 
library  at  Home,  in  two  thousand  folio  manuscript 
volumes,  which  have  never  been  accessible  to  Pro 
testants,  except  in  a  solitary  case,  and  then  to  a 
very  limited  extent. 

§  63.  A  third  class  of  public  documentary  ma 
terials  are  those  contained  in  the  archives  or  records 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY.  167 

of  civil  governments  in  Europe,  some  of  which  go 
back  to  the  old  Roman  times,  and  all  of  which 
contain  ecclesiastical  matter,  in  consequence  of  the 
intimate  connection  between  church  and  state  since 
Constantine. 

§  6-i.  Still  more  direct  in  their  bearing  on 
Church  History  are  the  collections  of  Symbolical 
Books,  including  Creeds,  Confessions,  Catechisms, 
and  other  books  of  elementary  instruction  in  the 
doctrines  of  religion,  which  of  course  afford  impor 
tant  aid  in  tracing  theological  mutations. 

§  65.  Similar  light  is  thrown  upon  the  history 
of  worship,  and  indirectly  upon  that  of  practical 
religion,  by  the  ancient  liturgies,  which,  far  from 
being  uniform  and  homogeneous,  are  both  nume 
rous  and  various  in  a  high  degree. 

§  66.  Of  less  intrinsic  value,  but  of  great  histor 
ical  importance  in  relation  to  particular  periods,  are 
the  rules  and  statutes  of  religious  bodies,  such  as 
the  Regulse,  or  Constitutions  of  Monastic  orders, 
which  exerted  a  great  influence  upon  society,  and 
often  give  the  key  to  circumstances  otherwise  inex 
plicable. 

§  67.  This  is  not  proposed  as   an  exhaustive 


168  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

catalogue  of  public  documentary  materials,  but 
rather  as  a  sample  of  the  most  abundant  sources, 
which  may  serve  to  convey  an  imperfect  but  defi 
nite  idea  of  the  multitude  of  such  materials,  which 
exist,  and  may  be  used  in  the  construction  of  Church 
History. 

§  68.  Private  Documents  include  all  other  writ 
ings  which  can  throw  light  on  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  which,  in  reference  to  their  authority 
and  value  as  historical  materials,  may  be  thrown 
into  three  classes. 

§  69.  Highest  in  this  respect  are  contemporary 
books  and  papers,  whether  formally  historical,  di 
dactic,  controversial,  practical,  devotional,  or  epis 
tolary,  which  last  are  regarded  by  the  best  modern 
writers  as  peculiarly  important,  especially  when 
brought  to  light  long  after  date,  and  evidently 
written  without  any  view  to  publication ;  so  that 
the  very  compositions  which  are  most  emphatically 
personal  and  private  often  throw  most  light  on 
public  history,  by  revealing  the  true  sentiments 
and  secret  motives  of  the  leading  actors,  and  are 
therefore  gathered  up,  deciphered,  and  edited  by 
learned  men,  with  all  the  critical  exactness  that 
was  once  applied  only  to  the  classics  or  the  Scrip 
tures.  A  remarkable  example  is  DeWette's  edition 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY.  169 

of  Luther's  letters,  with,  the  various  readings  of  the 
different  manuscripts,  a  work  which  throws  a  vivid 
light  on  Luther's  character  and  history,  as  well  as 
on  that  of  the  Reformation.  A  similar  effect, 
though  in  a  less  degree,  has  been  produced  upon 
our  own  revolutionary  history,  by  extracts  from 
inedited  or  newly-published  private  correspond 
ence,  exhibited  in  Irving's  Life  of  Washington. 

§  70.  Next  to  these  in  value,  as  historical  au 
thorities,  are  works  of  later  date,  but  made  of  con 
temporaneous  materials,  especially  when  these  are 
no  longer  in  existence  or  directly  accessible,  in 
which  case  such  works  are  the  only  succedaneum, 
imperfect  though  it  be,  for  what  has  thus  been 
lost. 

§  71.  The  third  or  residuary  class  includes  all 
elaborations  of  historical  material,  not  comprehend 
ed  under  either  of  the  others,  that  is  to  say,  a  large 
proportion  of  the  historical  literature  extant. 

§  72.  This  class,  though  the  lowest  in  historical 
authority, — which  must  not  be  confounded  with  lite 
rary  merit,  since  the  finest  modern  composition  may 
have  less  weight  as  a  witness  than  the  most  uncouth 
and  ungrammatical  contemporary  fragment, — has 
the  widest  influence  upqn  the  general  mass  of  read- 
8 


170  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

ers,  who  neither  will  nor  can  resort  to  the  original 
authorities,  except  by  proxy,  but  for  that  very  rea 
son  have  the  deepest  interest  in  knowing  that  their 
proxies  are  reliable  and  speak  the  truth. 

§  73.  We  are  thus  brought  to  the  fifth  intro 
ductory  question  (vide  supra,  §  1),  namely,  Who 
have  made  use  of  these  materials  and  brought  them 
into  history,  and  what  has  been  the  fruit  of  their 
labours  ? 

§  74.  The  answer  to  this  question  comprises  the 
History,  Literature,  or  Bibliography  of  Ecclesiasti 
cal  History. 

§  75.  It  might  have  been  expected  that  the  early 
Christian  Church  would  pay  great  attention  to  its 
own  history,  and  bring  it  to  a  state  of  high  perfec 
tion,  as  so  much  attention  had  been  paid  to  history, 
both  by  the  classical  and  sacred  writers  (§  45), 
and  the  highest  models  furnished  of  historiography, 
as  well  in  Hebrew  as  in  Greek  and  Latin. 

§  76.  But  this  antecedent  probability  was  so  far 
from  being  verified  by  the  event,  that  the  first 
three  centuries  are  almost  an  entire  blank  in  this 
respect,  few  histories  having  been  composed,  and  of 
those  few  none  preserved  entire. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  171 

§  77.  The  oldest  writer  of  clmrcli  history,  of 
whom  we  have  any  knowledge,  was  Hcgesippus,  a 
converted  Jew  of  Asia  Minor,  who,  about  the  mid 
dle  of  the  second  century,  by  travelling  and  other 
wise,  collected  the  traditions  of  the  Apostolic  Age, 
now  extant  only  in  the  shape  of  fragments  and 
quotations,  in  the  works  of  later  writers. 

§  78.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Chrono- 
graphia  of  Julius  Africanus,  written  about  a  hun 
dred  years  later. 

§  79.  There  is  no  proof  that  either  of  these 
works  was  a  regular  historical  composition ;  but, 
whatever  may  have  been  their  form  or  character, 
they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  so  much  in  demand 
as  to  secure  their  preservation,  though  their  disap 
pearance  may  be  owing  to  causes  wholly  indepen 
dent  cither  of  their  literary  merit  or  the  public 
taste. 

§  80.  This  remarkable  neglect  of  Ecclesiastical 
History,  in  the  very  period  when  it  might  have 
been  expected  most  to  flourish,  has  been  imputed 
to  the  constant  persecutions  of  the  age  ;  but  this  is 
not  a  satisfactory  solution,  as  they  did  not  hinder 
other  kinds  of  intellectual  exertion  ;  and  as  some  of 
the  interesting  historical  documents  of  that  age 


172  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

which  have  been  preserved  owe  both  their  exist 
ence  and  their  subject  to  these  very  sufferings  ; 
such  as  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp, 
recorded  by  the  church  at  Smyrna,  and  that  of  the 
persecution  in  the  south  of  Gaul,  by  the  churches 
of  Lyons  and  Yienne  (§  498). 

§  81.  A  better  explanation,  although  still  not 
wholly  satisfactory,  is,  that  historical  studies  were 
excluded  by  the  general  attention  to  didactic  and 
polemic  studies,  and  especially  to  philosophical 
speculation,  which,  when  pushed  to  an  extreme, 
has  always  led  to  the  neglect  of  history. 

§  82.  A  circumstance  which  may,  at  first  sight, 
seem  to  favour  the  opinion  that  persecution  was  the 
cause  of  this  neglect  is,  that  the  first  change  for  the 
better  took  place  under  Constantino,  by  whom  the 
church  was  freed  from  persecution ;  but  this,  if  it 
be  more  than  mere  fortuitous  coincidence,  cannot 
outweigh  the  facts  just  mentioned,  as  to  other 
forms  of  intellectual  activity. 

§  83.  The  oldest  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  now 
extant,  is  the  work  of  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Cesarea, 
in  Palestine,  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  cen- 
turv  ;  the  confidential  friend  and  spiritual  guide  of 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  173 

Constantino  ;  a  man  of  good  mind  and  considerable 
learning ;  of  so  mild  a  temper,  even  towards  the 
erring,  as  to  be  suspected  of  agreement  -with,  them  ; 
familiarly  conversant  with  all  the  great  events  and 
persons  of  the  day,  and  deriving  great  advantages  as 
a  historian  from  his  free  access  to  the  archives  of 
the  empire,  as  well  as  to  the  library  founded  at 
Cesarea  by  his  friend  Pamphilus,  from  whom  he  is 
sometimes  called  Eusebius  Pamphili. 

§  81.  Besides  his  Preparatio  Evangel,  which  is 
not  so  much  historical  as  doctrinal,  he  wrote  a 
Chronicle  and  an  Ecclesiastical  History,  to  which 
his  account  of  the  martyrs  of  Palestine,  and  his 
panegyrical  biography  of  Constantino,  may  be  re 
garded  as  appendices.  These  works,  and  especially 
the  Ecclesiastical  History,  are  disfigured  by  a  style 
at  once  inflated  and  jejune,  and  by  a  method  some 
times  wholly  arbitrary  or  fortuitous,  and  sometimes 
simply  chronological,  without  any  attempt  at  a  di 
gested  systematic  form.  Their  chief  merits  are 
the  personal  testimony  of  a  witness  so  competent 
and  credible  to  the  events  of  his  own  time,  and 
the  preservation  of  older  documents,  fragments 
and  quotations,  in  a  manner  which  detracts  from 
the  literary  merit  of  the  composition,  but  enhances 
its  value  as  a  storehouse  of  materials. 


174  ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY. 

§  85.  The  example  of  Eusebitis  was  not  without 
effect  upon  his  contemporaries,  and  especially  his 
followers  in  the  next  generation,  some  of  whom 
wrote  history  chiefly  for  polemic  purposes  ;  as  Epi- 
phanius,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  most  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  ancient  heresies  ;  and  Philostor- 
gius,  whose  lost  work  was  intended  to  maintain  the 
Arian  cause.  Another  lost  historian  of  the  fourth 
century  is  Sidetes,  of  Pamphylia,  described  as  a 
copious,  but  confused  and  immethodical,  writer. 

§  86.  The  next  century  produced  several  con- 
tinuators  of  Eusebius,  whose  history  ends  with  the 
year  321 ;  among  the  rest,  two  lawyers  of  Byzan 
tium,  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  and  an  eminent  bishop, 
theologian,  and  interpreter,  Theodoret ;  all  of  whom 
cover  nearly  the  same  ground,  being  a  little  more 
than  a  hundred  years. 

§  87.  In  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century, 
Theodoras,  of  Constantinople,  wrote  a  continuation 
of  Eusebius,  which  is  lost,  and  an  abridgment, 
which  is  extant,  but  of  little  value.  The  last  Greek 
continuator  of  Eusebius,  or  of  his  continuators,  is 
Evagrius  of  Antioch,  about  the  end  of  the  sixth 
century,  who  brought  down  the  history  until  near 
that  time. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  175 

§  88.  The  Latin  clmrcli-liistorians  of  the  same 
age  were  little  more  than  translators  and  abridgers 
of  the  Greeks.  The  Historia  Sacra  of  the  Gallic 
Presbyter,  Sulpicius  Severus,  called  the  Christian 
Sallust,  from  his  comparatively  classic  style,  and 
the  similar  work  of  the  Spaniard,  Orosius,  are  uni 
versal  histories,  but  contain  much  religious  or  ec 
clesiastical  matter.  Ruffin  or  Rttfinus,  an  Italian 
translated  and  continued  Eusebius.  Casiodorus,  an 
Ostrogoth  in  Italy,  by  compilation  and  abridgment, 
formed  a  manual,  which,  with  that  just  mentioned, 
remained  in  use  as  a  text-book  through  the  Middle 
Ages. 

§  89.  During  the  Middle  Ages  there  are  no  pro 
fessed  church-historians  in  Greek  before  Nicephorus 
Callisti  in  the  thirteenth  century ;  but  much  eccle 
siastical  matter  is  contained  in  the  Byzantine  his 
torians  (from  the  end  of  the  fifth  to  that  of  the  fif 
teenth  century),  as  the  Greek  church  was  not  only 
united  with  the  state,  but  much  involved  in  politics 
and  court  intrigues. 

§  90.  The  subjugation  of  the  "Western  Roman 
Empire  (near  the  end  of  the  fifth  century)  by  the 
northern  barbarians,  was  followed  immediately  by 
great  intellectual  depression,  and  remotely  by  ex- 


IT  6  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

treme  devotion  to  scholastic  studies,  which  were 
equally  unfriendly  to  historical  and  classical  pur 
suits  ;  so  that  the  medieval  histories  became  mere 
chronicles  or  annals,  among  which  two  of  the  most 
celebrated  are  those  of  William  of  Tyre  and  Mat 
thew  Paris,  one  relating  chiefly  to  the  east,  the 
other  to  the  west  of  Europe. 

§  91.  As  exceptions  to  the  general  dearth  of 
history  in  the  Middle  Ages  may  be  mentioned  some 
who  wrote  the  history  of  their  own  national 
churches ;  such  as  Gregory  of  Tours  in  France, 
Beda  Venerabilis  in  England,  Paulus  Deaconus 
in  Italy,  and  Adam  of  Bremen  in  the  north  of 
Europe. 

§  92.  But  besides  the  literary  degradation  of 
church-history  in  this  period,  it  was  morally  de 
based  by  the  increase  of  superstition,  and  especially 
that  form  of  it  called  Hagiolatry,  which  led  to  a 
rivalry  between  the  tutelary  saints  of  different 
churches,  provinces,  and  nations,  to  maintain  which 
their  biographies  not  only  usurped  the  place  of 
more  important  history,  but  were  first  embellished, 
and  then  forged,  which  did  not  prevent  their  being 
sanctioned  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  as  legenda, 
or  lessons  to  be  read  in  public  or  private  worship, 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  177 

whence  our  words  "  legend,"  "  legendary,"  have 
become  almost  synonymous  with  "  fable,"  "  fabu 
lous." 

§  93.  The  general  state  of  historical  knowledge 
reached  its  lowest  ebb  in  the  age  before  the  Refor 
mation,  and  was  intentionally  kept  there  by  the 
rulers  of  the  church,  w^hose  policy  it  was  to  repre 
sent  the  existing  rites  and  doctrines  as  identical 
with  those  of  the  apostolic  age  ;  an  illusion  which 
would  instantly  have  been  dispelled  by  any  clear 
view  of  the  intervening  history. 

§  94.  The  Revival  of  Letters,  which  preceded 
and  prepared  the  way  for  the  Reformation,  or  Re 
vival  of  Religion,  gave  the  first  shock  to  the  pre 
vailing  ignorance,  and  by  the  sceptical  criticism  of 
such  men  as  Laurentius  Yalla,  excited  a  spirit  of  in 
quiry  into  early  history  as  well  as  doctrine. 

§  95.  This  spirit  of  historical  inquiry  is  related 
to  the  Reformation,  both  as  a  cause  and  an  effect, 
having  led  the  way  to  the  correction  of  abuses, 
and  the  restoration  of  a  purer  faith  and  practice, 
which,  in  their  turn,  gave  a  stronger  impulse  to 
this  class  of  studies. 

§  96.  All   the   polemic   writings   of  the   great 
8* 


178  ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOEY. 

Reformers  are  so  far  historical  as  they  demonstrate 
the  corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  inno 
vations,  and  contrast  them  with  the  simplicity  and 
purity  of  ancient  times ;  but  Luther  and  Calvin 
wrote  no  formal  histories,  as  their  associates  and 
successors,  Beza  and  Melancthon  did ;  a  circum 
stance  which,  seems  to  show,  that  the  importance  of 
Ecclesiastical  History  as  a  means  of  refuting  error, 
and  establishing  the  truth,  was  more  and  more  ap 
preciated,  as  the  work  of  Reformation  advanced. 

§  97.  The  first  complete  Ecclesiastical  History 
was  the  product  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation,  al 
though  projected  after  Luther's  death,  by  one  of  his 
most  zealous  disciples,  Matthias  Flacius  called  Illy- 
ricus,  because  a  native  of  the  ancient  Illyricum,  a 
man  of  strong  mind  and  great  learning,  and  a 
strenuous  opposer  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but 
coarse  in  taste  and  violent  in  temper. 

§  98.  To  Elacius  is  due  the  bold  and  new  con 
ception  of  a  history  of  the  Church  upon  the  largest 
scale,  designed  to  expose  the  Romish  errors  in  de 
tail,  and  trace  the  progress  of  corruption  from  age 
to  age. 

§  99.  lie  had  the  sagacity  to  see,  that  such  a 
work  could  be  successful  only  in  proportion  to  its 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOKY.  179 

fulness  and  exactness,  and  to  the  weight  of  the 
authorities  on  which  it  rested ;  as  well  as  that  it 
was  beyond  the  strength  of  any  one  man,  and  could 
only  be  accomplished  by  associated  labour. 

§  100.  lie  therefore  devised  a  well-concerted 
scheme  of  organization,  consisting  of  five  managers  or 
directors  (gitbernatores\  and  under  them  ten  labourers 
(operarii))  seven  of  whom  were  to  collect  materials, 
two  to  digest  them,  and  the  tenth  to  write  them  out. 

§  101.  The  first  partner  number  of  this  great 
work  appeared  at  Basel,  from  the  press  of  Oporinus, 
in  the  year  1559,  and  the  last  in  January,  1574:, 
under  the  title  of  "  Ilistoria  Ecclesiastica,  &c.,"  but 
as  Flacius  and  his  chief  associates  were  then  resident 
in  Magdeburg,  and  as  the  centuries  were  issued 
seriatim,  it  has  ever  since  been  known  by  the  name 
of  the  "  Magdeburg  Centuries,"  and  its  authors  as 
the  "  Magdeburg  Centuriators." 

§  102.  This  publication  acted  as  a  blaze  of  light 
upon  the  darkness  of  the  age,  in  which  the  rays 
which  had  already  been  omitted  in  particular  dis 
cussions  were  concentrated  and  reduced  to  a  com 
plete  and  regular  historical  arrangement. 

§  103.  At  the  same  time,  it  raised  ecclesiastical 
history  to  a  position,  which  it  has  ever  since  retain- 


180  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 

ed,  especially  in  Germany,  and  although  it  repressed 
for  a  time  the  spirit  of  original  investigation,  in  a 
field  which  seemed  to  be  already  exhausted,  it 
eventually  gave  a  new  and  mighty  impulse  to  such 
studies,  in  both  divisions  of  the  great  Protestant 
body,  exciting  Lutherans  to  continue  the  good  work 
begun  among  themselves,  and  stirring  up  the  Cal- 
vinists  to  emulation. 

§  104.  Its  effect  upon  the  Church  of  Rome  was 
still  more  remarkable,  as  it  led,  after  various  at 
tempts  to  counteract  its  influence  in  other  ways,  to 
the  preparation  of  a  work  of  the  same  kind,  de 
signed  expressly  to  refute  it,  and  to  establish,  by 
historical  evidence,  the  very  system  which  the  Cen 
turies  were  meant  to  overthrow. 

§  105.  The  person  chosen  for  this  service  was  a 
young  Dominican  of  great  ability  and  learning, 
Cesar  Baronius,  who  was  afterwards  rewarded  for 
his  labours  by  the  dignity  of  a  Cardinal. 

§  106.  The  "Annals"  of  Baronius  made  its 
first  appearance  in  the  year  1588,  and  was  con 
tinued  by  the  same  hand  till  the  year  1607,  the 
author  having  access  to  additional  materials  con 
tained  in  the  archives  of  the  Papal  See,  and  other 
repositories  inaccessible  to  Protestants,  (vide  supra, 


ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY.  181 

§  62) ;  but  while  this  seemed  to  give  him  some  ex 
clusive  advantages,  it  also  tended  to  excite  suspicion 
in  his  own  church  as  well  as  among  Protestants,  as 
to  the  fidelity  with  which  he  had  made  use  of 
these  materials,  so  carefully  withheld  from  public 
view. 

§  107.  The  "  Annals,"  although  now  extremely 
rare,  have  been  several  times  reprinted,  with  and 
without  Renaud's  continuation,  bringing  them  down 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

§  108.  These  two  great  works,  themselves  the 
fruit  of  theological  discussion  in  the  age  of  the 
Reformation,  may  be  represented  as  the  parents  of 
a  vast  and  varied  literature,  belonging  to  the 
province  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

§100.  Although  the  Annals  of  Baronius  were 
intended  to  maintain  the  strictest  form  of  Romish 
doctrine,  the  later  historiography  of  that  church 
was  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  its  more  liberal  theolo 
gians  ;  such  as  Fra  Paolo  (Sarpi),  the  classical  and 
almost  Protestant  historian  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
to  whom  Pallavicino  bears  the  same  relation  as 
Baronius  to  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators. 

§  110.  To  the  same  class  may  be  referred  a  bril- 


182  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

liant  constellation  of  historians  belonging  to  tlie 
Gallican  or  Homish  cliurcli  of  France,  among 

'  O 

whom  may  be  named  Morinus,  Pctavins,  Tille- 
mont,  li.  Simon,  Fleury,  and  Natalis  Alexander, 
whose  history  was  composed  in  such  a  spirit  as 
to  be  put  upon  the  Index  of  forbidden  books  at 
Home. 

§  111.  The  most  elegant  and  eloquent  of  these 
Gallican  historians  was  the  famous  Eossuet,  the 
most  admired  preacher  and  accomplished  champion 
of  his  church  in  that  age,  whose  Discourse  on  Uni 
versal  History  is  not  only  a  French  classic  of  the 
first  rank,  but  a  noble  view  of  the  whole  field  from 
the  highest  Christian  ground,  though  not  without 
an  eye  to  the  exaltation  of  his  own  creed  and  com 
munion. 

§  112.  The  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  churches  of 
the  seventeenth  century  furnished  many  zealous 
and  successful  rivals  of  the  great  historians  of  the 
previous  age ;  but  it  has  been  noted  as  a  curious 
fact,  that  their  researches  tended  rather  to  special 
than  to  general  church  history,  though  Hottinger 
in  Switzerland  produced  a  good  work  of  that  kind, 
while  Spanheim  and  the  Basnages  in  Holland, 
Daille,  Blondel,  and  Salmasius  in  France,  excelled 
in  cultivating  smaller  fields. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  183 

§  113.  Ill  the  same  century,  the  Church  of  England 
produced  many  eminent  historical  writers,  chiefly 
on  special  or  restricted  subjects,  among  whom  may 
be  named  as  representatives,  Archbishop  Usher ; 
Bishops  Pearson,  Beveridge,  and  Burnet ;  Doctors 
Dodwell,  Cave,  Bull,  and  Bingham,  who  is  still 
one  of  the  highest  authorities  in  the  department  of 
Ecclesiastical  Antiquities,  or  Christian  Archaeology 
(vide  supra,  §  43). 

§  114-.  The  tone  of  church  history  continued  to 
be  controversial  or  polemic,  more  especially  in  Ger 
many,  until  Calixtus,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
attempted  to  introduce  a  more  pacific  and  dispas 
sionate  mode  of  treating  the  subject,  with  a  view  to 
the  promotion  of  his  favourite  scheme  of  reuniting 
all  Christian  churches,  on  the  doctrinal  and  eccle 
siastical  basis  of  the  first  six  centuries ;  but  the 
unpopularity  of  this  scheme  gave  him  little  influ 
ence  on  contemporary  historiography. 

§  115.  More  success,  in  this  direction,  attended 
the  efforts  of  Spener,  the  first  founder  of  the  Pie 
tists,  to  moderate  polemic  rancour,  and  to  make 
experimental  piety  the  essence  of  church  history, 
as  well  as  of  Christianity  itself ;  while  the  orthodox 
Lutherans  of  the  same  date,  like  the  Calvinistic 
writers  of  an  earlier  day,  spent  their  strength 


184:  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

chiefly  upon  special  subjects,  such  as  the  History 
of  the  Reformation,  as  composed  by  Seckendorf 
and  others. 

§  116.  This  new  mode  of  writing  history  was 
pushed  to  an  extreme  by  Godfrey  Arnold,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  last  century,  who  allowed  his  feel 
ings  as  a  Pietist,  and  therefore  an  opponent  of  the 
Orthodox  Lutherans,  to  govern  him  so  far,,  that  he 
espoused  the  cause  of  heretics  in  general,  and,  with 
out  embracing  their  opinions,  undertook  to  show 
that  they  were  often,  if  not  always,  morally  in  the 
right,  and  the  Church,  as  a  body,  in  the  wrong. 
This  work,  although  it  gave  rise  to  a  long  and 
angry  controversy,  was  deprived  of  permanent  and 
popular  effect  by  its  paradoxical  character  and  by 
its  harsh  and  unattractive  style. 

§  117.  Though  Arnold,  strictly  speaking,  had 
no  follower,  his  very  excesses,  when  contrasted  with 
those  of  previous  writers  in  the  opposite  direction, 
contributed  still  further  to  divest  Ecclesiastical  His 
tory  of  its  predominant  polemic  tone,  and  to  pro 
mote  a  more  impartial  and  dispassionate  treatment 
of  the  subject ;  as  appears  from  the  tone  of  the 
most  eminent  historians  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  as  well  among  the  Lutherans 
(such  as  Buddeus,  Fabricius,  and  "\Veismann)  as 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  185 

among  the  Calvinists  (such  as  Jablonsld,Venema, 
J.  A.  Turrctin,  Lenfant,  Beausobre  and  Le  Clerc,  or 
Clericus)  ;  and  the  same  thing  is  measurably  true 
of  Romish  writers  also  (such  as  Orsi  and  Mansi). 

§  118.  The  danger  now  was  that  the  controver 
sial  spirit  would  give  place  to  one  of  cold  indiffer 
ence  as  to  matters  in  dispute,  even  where  the  writer 
really  adhered  to  orthodox  opinions ;  and  this  fear  is 
thought  by  some  to  have  been  realized  in  the  case 
of  the  next  distinguished  writer,  who  exerted  a 
commanding  influence  both  on  contemporaneous 
and  on  subsequent  historiography,  John  Laurence 
Mosheim,  who  died  in  1755,  after  holding  a  con 
spicuous  position  during  many  years,  at  Helmstadt 
and  Gottingen. 

§  119.  Besides  a  multitude  of  books  and  tracts 
on  various  subjects,  chiefly  belonging  to  Church 
History,  he  published  two,  which  have  never  lost 
their  place  among  the  highest  secondary  or  deriva 
tive  authorities  (see  §  71) ;  his  "  Commentaries  on 
the  State  of  Christianity  before  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine,"  and  his  "  Institutes  of  Ecclesiastical  His 
tory,  Ancient  and  Modern  ; "  both  which  have 
been  translated  into  English,  and  the  last  of  which, 
though  now  comparatively  little  used  in  Germany, 


186  ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOEY. 

has  long  been  a  favourite  text-book,  both  in  Eng 
land  and  America. 

§  120.  The  works  of  Mosheim  are  distinguished, 
in  addition  to  the  absence  of  all  warmth  and  jpas- 
sion,  by  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject,  rare 
acuteness  and  sagacity  in  critical  conjecture  and 
historical  combination ;  great  completeness  and  ex 
actness  as  to  the  essential  facts  of  history ;  extreme 
formality  and  clearness  of  arrangement,  and  espe 
cially  by  classical  elegance  of  Latin  style,  which 
last  attraction  is  of  course  wanting,  both  in  the  free 
or  rather  loose  translation  of  Maclaine,  and  in  the 
accurate  but  awkward  one  of  Murdock,  who  has 
added  to  the  value  of  the  original,  considered  as  a 
storehouse  of  facts,  but  not  to  its  beauty  as  a  com 
position  by  his  numerous  and  often  overloaded 
notes. 

§  121.  The  influence  of  Mosheim's  better  taste 
and  temper  may  be  traced  in  the  German  writers 
who  succeeded  him,  among  whom  may  be  named 
as  representatives,  Baumgarten,  Cramer,  Pfaff,  and 
the  two  "Walchs,  father  and  son,  several  of  whom, 
as  well  as  others  not  here  mentioned,  have  inde 
pendent  merits  of  their  own. 

§  122.  The  next  important  change  in  historical 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOIIY.  1ST 

writing  and  investigation  was  occasioned  by  the 
rise  of  German  rationalism  or  neology,  of  which  the 
reputed  father  is  John  Solomon  Semler,  professor 
at  Halle,  who,  although  educated  in  the  strictest 
forms  of  Pietism,  and  never  wholly  emancipated 
from  its  influence,  did  more  perhaps  than  any  other 
person  to  shake  the  foundations  of  men's  faith  in 
the  divine  authority  of  Scripture,  by  calling  every 
thing  in  question,  and  suggesting  doubts  as  to  the 
authenticity  of  almost  every  book  in  the  Bible,  a 
sceptical  criticism  which  has  been  carried  to  still 
greater  length  by  later  writers,  in  reference  both  to 
Scripture  and  Church  History,  to  which  it  was  ap 
plied  by  Semler  himself,  not  in  regular  historical 
compositions,  but  in  various  confused,  ill-written 
works,  and,  still  more,  through  the  intermediate 
agency  of  pupils  and  disciples. 

§  123.  The  sceptical  tendency  thus  introduced 
into  the  study  of  Church  History  had  very  different 
effects  on  different  classes ;  in  frivolous  and  shal 
low  minds  engendering  contempt  for  the  whole  sub 
ject,  and  producing  works  of  a  satirical  and  scoffing 
tone,  such  as  those  of  Spittler  and  Hcnke ;  while  in 
minds  of  greater  depth  and  earnestness,  even  when 
destitute  of  strong  faith  in  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
it  led  to  a  laborious  reconstruction  of  Church  His- 


188  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

toiy  by  working  up  the  original  materials  afresh, 
and  giving  them  a  new  shape,  either  in  general 
works  (such  as  the  gigantic  one  of  Schrockh),  or 
special  treatises  (like  those  of  Planek  and  Stiiudlin). 

§  12i.  To  the  latter  class  belongs  an  extensive 
literature  of  recent  date,  beginning  near  the  close 
of  the  last  century,  and  flourishing  especially  dur 
ing  the  first  quarter  of  the  present,  being  one  of  the 
good,  incidental  fruits  of  the  new  impulse  given  to 
historical  research  by  the  sceptical  or  rationalistic 
movement,  which  produced  a  strong  taste  and  de 
mand  for  monographs,  or  thorough  and  minute  in 
vestigations  of  some  single  doctrine,  period,  or  per 
sonage,  derived  directly  from  original  authorities, 
and  published  as  a  separate  and  independent  work. 

§  125.  Besides  the  interest  imparted  to  many 
distinct  topics  of  Church  History  by  this  detailed 
and  thorough  mode  of  treating  them,  these  mono 
graphs  were  gradually  storing  up  materials  for  new 
works  of  a  general  and  comprehensive  character,  to 
fill  the  chasms  or  supply  the  place  of  those  which 
had  appeared  before  these  new  researches  and  ac 
cumulations  were  begun ;  the  very  same  persons 
sometimes  taking  part  in  both  the  processes,  that 
is,  distinguishing  themselves  as  writers  both  of 
monographs  and  general  church  histories. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  189 

§  126.  The  most  signal  instance  of  this  twofold 
labour  and  success  is  that  afforded  by  Xeander,  of 
Jewish  birth,  but  Christian  education,  a  child  in 
spirit  and  in  secular  affairs,  but  in  intellect  a  man, 
and  in  learning  a  giant,  for  many  years  an  eminent 
professor  at  Berlin,  where  he  died  in  1850,  and  now 
acknowledged  to  have  no  superior  as  a  general 
writer  on  Church  History,  but  first  distinguished,  in 
his  early  manhood,  as  the  author  of  invaluable 
monographs  or  special  treatises  on  Julian  the  Apos 
tate,  on  Tertullian,  on  Chrysostom,  and  on  Bernard, 
each  of  which,  besides  a  full  biography,  including  a 
large  portion  of  contemporary  history,  contains  a  crit 
ical  analysis  of  many  ancient  and  important  works. 

§  127.  At  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  time  seemed  to  be  come  for 
the  reduction  of  these  new  or  freshly  gathered 
stores  to  a  complete  and  systematic  whole  in  gen 
eral  church  histories  ;  a  crisis  indicated  by  the 
almost  simultaneous  commencement  of  two  great 
works  which  are  still  unfinished,  but  unanimously 
reckoned,  by  all  competent  authorities,  to  be  the 
two  great  master-pieces  of  the  age  in  this  depart 
ment,  one  by  Xeander,  which  appeared  in  1825, 
and  the  other  in  the  preceding  year,  by  Gieseler, 
who  was  already  known  as  a  learned  and  sagacious 


190  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

critic,  one  of  his  ablest  compositions  being  a  review 
of  Meander's  Tertullian,  in  wliicli  lie  developed  his 
own  theory  of  Gnosticism. 

§  128.  The  authors  of  these  two  works  are  as 
much  alike  in  some  points  as  they  are  unlike  in 
others,  the  resemblance  lying  in  their  education 
and  extent  of  reading,  their  official  positions  and 
professional  employments,  their  integrity  and  truth 
fulness,  and  their  use,  for  the  most  part,  of  the 
same  materials,  both  being  thoroughly  and  equally 
familiar  with  the  oldest  authorities,  and  the  freshest 
forms  into  which  the  raw  material  had  been  newly 
wrought ;  the  difference  lying  in  the  calm  impar 
tiality  of  Gieseler  as  contrasted  with  the  honest  and 
enlightened  zeal  of  Meander  ;  and  in  the  moderate 

O  ' 

and  unimpassioned  rationalism  of  the  one,  com 
pared  with  the  warm  but  meagre  Christianity  of 
the  other. 

§  129.  The  books  themselves  are  as  unlike  as 
their  authors,  both  in  plan  and  execution ;  Gieseler's 
consisting  of  an  exquisite  selection  from  the  very 
words  of  the  original  authorities,  arranged  as  notes 
and  strung  together  by  a  slender  thread  of  narra 
tive  ;  Meander's  of  the  very  same  materials,  but 
digested  in  his  own  mind,  and  wrought  up  into  a 
flowing  homogeneous  narrative,  exhibiting  the  ex- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  191 

press  of  his  character  in  almost  every  page  and  sen 
tence  ;  the  one  as  perfectly  objective  as  the  other 
is  subjective  in  its  whole  design  and  structure  ;  the 
one  enabling  every  reader  to  construct  the  history 
for  himself,  the  other  exliibiting  it  ready-made,  but 
by  the  hand  of  a  master. 

§.  130.  The  difference  just  mentioned  may  ac 
count  for  the  fact  that  Gieseler,  although  univer 
sally  applauded,  and  implicitly  relied  upon  for  facts 
and  for  materials,  has  founded  no  distinct  school, 
and  propagated  no  peculiar  mode  of  writing  his 
tory  ;  whereas  Neander  has  had  many  professed 
followers,  who  hold  his  principles,  adopt  his  plans, 
and  sometimes  even  imitate  his  style  and  manner. 

• 

§  131.  Among  the  most  faithful  and  yet  most 
independent  followers  of  Neander  may  be  men 
tioned  Guericke,  who  carries  out  his  master's  plan 
in  a  more  compendious  form,  but  with  an  almost 
bigoted  attachment  to  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
Luther,  and  in  a  style  so  crabbed  and  involved  as 
to  forbid  translation  or  convenient  use  in  elementary 
instruction,  although  it  has  been  eminently  useful 
as  a  vehicle,  not  only  of  the  best  historical  knowl 
edge,  but  of  sincere  piety  and  sound  religious  prin 
ciples  in  all  essential  points. 


192  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  132.  Another  representative  of  this  school  is 
Jacobi,  less  orthodox  and  pious  than  Guerieke,  but 
nearer  to  ISTeander  in  sentiment  and  spirit,  and 
superior  to  both  in  clearness  and  simplicity  of  style 
and  method,  which,  together  with  the  fact  that  his 
work  was  suggested  and  commended  to  the  public 
by  Meander,  as  the  best  compendious  view  of  his 
own  system,  although  far  from  being  a  mere  abridg 
ment,  makes  it  matter  of  regret  that  it  has  not  yet 
gone  beyond  a  single  part  or  volume,  extending 
not  quite  to  the  close  of  the  sixth  century. 

§  133.  As  other  offshoots  of  Meander's  stock, 
though  very  different,  in  some  points,  both  from 
him  and  from  each  other,  may  be  named  Schaff  of 
Mercerburg  and  Lange  of  Zurich  ;  but  as  neither 
of  these  writers  has  yet  brought  his  work  below 
the  Apostolic  age,  they  can  scarcely  be  considered 
as  belonging  to  our  present  subject. 

§  134:.  Still  more  unlike  Neander,  both  in  senti 
ment  and  method,  although  evidently  nurtured  in 
his  school,  is  Hase  of  Jena,  a  man  of  genius  and  of 
cultivated  taste,  and  an  original  and  brilliant  writer, 
but  unduly  partial  to  the  mere  aesthetic  and  artis- 
tical  relations  of  his  subject,  not  so  much  a  believer 
as  an  admirer  of  the  Gospel  (rather  than  a  believer), 
and  so  often  obscure  from  epigrammatic  or  laconic 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  193 

brevity,  and  from  rather  presupposing  than  detail 
ing  facts,  that  he  is  scarcely  more  translatable  or  fit 
for  elementary  instruction  than  Guericke  himself, 
though  otherwise  no  two  writers  can  be  more  dis 
similar  and  even  opposite. 

§  135.  One  of  the  latest  and  best  German 
writers  is  John  Henry  Kurtz,  now  Professor  at 
Dorpat,  but  for  many  years  a  Gymnasial  teacher, 
which  has  given  him  a  practical  acquaintance  with 
the  wants  of  students,  while  his  thorough  knowl 
edge  of  the  Biblical  History,  on  which  he  is  the 
author  of  some  admirable  works,  gives  him  a  great 
advantage  over  some  justly  celebrated  church  his 
torians.  His  facility  and  zeal  as  a  maker  of  books 
have  tempted  him  to  vary  their  form  and  multiply 
their  number  to  excess  ;  but  all  of  them  are  sound, 
clear,  wholesome  in  tendency,  and  admirably  suited 
both  to  academical  and  general  use. 

§  136.  One  of  the  most  singular  effects  of  mod 
ern  German  changes  in  this  science  is  the  frequent 
adoption  of  the  form  and  method  common  among 
Protestants,  by  Roman  Catholic  historians,  includ 
ing  liberality  of  tone  and  abstinence  from  all  po 
lemic  violence,  but  really  by  that  means  tending  to 
insinuate  their  own  views  more  effectually  into  the 
minds  of  unsuspicious  readers  ;  while  in  Italy,  and 


194  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

even  in  France,  works  of  this  class  still  retain  the 
bigoted  exclusive  form,  by  which  they  have  always 
been  distinguished  from  the  writings  of  Reformed 
theologians.  Of  the  former,  Alzog's  "  Universal 
History  of  the  Christian  Church  "  may  be  taken  as 
a  sample ;  of  the  latter,  S.  L'Homond's  "  History 
of  the  Church,"  as  re-written  by  the  Abbe  Postel, 
for  the  use  of  schools  and  families  in  France. 

§  137.  In  the  British  isles,  Ecclesiastical  His 
tory  has  been  chiefly  cultivated  in  the  Church  of 
England  and  the  great  Universities  of  Oxford  and 
Cambridge,  or  by  men  instructed  there,  of  late 
years  more  or  less  controlled  by  German  influence, 
but  never  without  much  independent  use  of  the 
original  authorities,  and  almost  always  with  the 
rare  advantage  of  general  culture,  classical  scholar 
ship,  and  a  native  English  style. 

§  138.  Near  the  end  of  the  last  century,  Joseph 
Milner,  an  Anglican  clergyman  of  the  evangelical 
or  low-church  party,  and  a  man  of  greater  piety 
and  learning  than  sound  judgment,  wrote  the  his 
tory  of  the  church  until  the  Reformation,  with  the 
avowed  purpose  of  making  practical  religion  or  ex 
perimental  Christianity  the  great  subject  of  his  work, 
and  passing  over  all  that  does  not  bear  upon  it,  a  plan 
injudicious  in  itself,  and  very  imperfect  in  its  exe- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  195 

cution,  doing  credit  to  tlie  author's  own  religions 
character  and  sentiments,  and  generally  edifying  to 
'  the '  readers  of  congenial  spirit,  but,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  partial  and  onesided,  and  ex 
ceedingly  imperfect  as  a  full  view  of  the  whole 
subject. 

§  139.  Milman,  now  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's, 
London,  previously  well  known  as  a  poet,  an  histo 
rian  of  the  Jews,  and  an  editor  of  Gibbon,  has  also 
written  a  "  History  of  Christianity  to  the  abolition 
of  Paganism  in  the  Eoman  Empire,"  since  con 
tinued  in  his  "  History  of  Latin  Christianity,"  ex 
tending  to  Xicolas  Y.,  a  work  distinguished  by 
originality  and  erudition,  an  elegant  though  not 
an  easy  style,  and  free  to  a  great  extent  from  that 
apparent  sympathy  with  German  scepticism  or 
latitudinarianism,  with  which  some  of  his  earlier 
works  had  been  reproached,  but  not  entitled  to  the 
praise  of  having  carried  Church  History  beyond 
the  point  where  Gieseler  and  Neander  left  it. 

§  140.  Equally  scholarlike  and  elegant,  and  still 
more  Christian  in  their  tone,  but  at  the  same  time 
still  more  Anglican  in  sentiment  and  prepossession, 
although  free  from  any  thing  offensive  in  preten 
sion  or  assumption,  are  the  "  History  of  the  Chris 
tian  Church  to  the  Pontificate  of  Gregory  the 


196  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

Great,"  by  J.  C.  Bol)ertson,  a  beneficed  clergyman 
in  England,  and  the  "  History  of  the  Christian 
Church  during  the  first  three  centuries,"  by  J.  J. 
Blunt,  late  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge, 
the  latter  a  posthumous  collection  of  the  Author's 
Academical  Lectures  ;  the  former  intended  for  the 
use  of  general  readers,  as  well  as  of  students  in 
theology 

§  141.  One  of  the  latest  and  best  English  works 
of  this  class  is  the  "  History  of  the  Christian  Church 
during  the  Middle  Age,  and  during  the  Reforma 
tion,"  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Hardwick,  formerly  of 
Cambridge,  then  of  Harrow,  now  of  King's  Col 
lege,  London,  the  two  volumes  forming  part  of  a 
Series  of  Theological  Manuals,  for  the  use  of  can 
didates  for  orders  in  the  Church  of  England,  pre 
pared  by  several  different  writers,  and  now  issuing 
at  Cambridge.  The  two  in  question  show  an  inti 
mate  acquaintance  with  the  modern  German  litera 
ture,  as  well  as  the  original  authorities,  soundness 
on  all  essential  doctrines,  avowed  attachment  to 
the  polity  and  worship  of  the  author's  church,  but 
scrupulous  courtesy  and  candor  towards  others, 
with  a  clearness  of  method,  elegance  of  style,  and 
beauty  of  typography  not  often  found  in  combina 
tion. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  197 

§  142.  None  of  these  modern  English  writers  on 
Church  History,  betray  the  slightest  tendency  or 
tenderness  towards  Romish  error,  such  as  may  be 
traced  in  the  "  Ecclesiastical  History  "  of  Palmer, 
one  of  the  Oxford  Theologians,  republished  in 
America  by  Bp.  Whittingham,  of  Maryland,  and 
adapted  to  parochial  instruction.  This  work, 
which  is  a  small  and  slight  one,  without  any  pre 
tension  to  original  or  independent  value,  is  the 
only  general  Church  History  with  which  I  am  ac 
quainted,  representing  or  proceeding  from  the  Pu- 
seyite  or  Romish  party  in  the  Church  of  Engand. 

§  143.  The  sixth  and  last  introductory  topic 
is  that  of  method,  involving  two  questions,  what 
method  has  been  pursued  by  the  best  writers,  and 
what  method  shall  we  adopt  ourselves  ;  the  answer 
to  the  second  depending  in  some  measure  on  the 
answer  to  the  first,  as  we  may  profit  by  the  fail 
ures  as  well  as  the  successes  of  our  predecessors, 
without  any  annoyance  on  our  part,  since  by  stand 
ing  on  the  shoulders  of  a  giant,  even  a  pigmy  may 
see  further. 

§  144.  By  method  is  here  meant  such  a  distri 
bution  or  arrangement  of  a  subject  as  is  neither 
accidental,  i.  e.  determined  by  causes  independent 
of  the  writers  will  and  judgment ;  nor  arbitrary, 


198  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

i.  e.  determined  by  his  will  alone ;  but  rational, 
i.  e.  determined  by  an  act  of  judgment,  and  for 
whicb.  a  reason  can  be  given. 

§  145.  Method  is  essential  to  all  science,  even 
in  the  widest  sense,  because  it  enters  into  the  very 
definition  or  idea  of  science,  as  rational  or  systematic 
knowledge ;  but  is  especially  important  in  those 
sciences  which  do  not  rest  on  demonstration,  math 
ematical  or  moral,  and  which  do  not  therefore  dic 
tate  their  own  method,  as  geometry  and  logic  do. 

§  146.  The  choice  of  a  good  method  is  espe 
cially  important  in  historical  studies,  because  there 
are  so  many  ways  in  which  the  same  facts  may  be 
stated,  without  any  variation  from  substantial  truth, 
as  appears,  not  only  from  the  usages  of  historical 
composition,  but  also  from  the  usages  of  common 
life,  no  two  men  commonly  adopting  the  same  form 
or  order  in  relating  the  most  trivial  incident. 

O 

§  147.  But  while  this  makes  the  choice  of  a 
good  method  indispensable  in  all  history,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in 
particular,  requiring  a  method  wholly  peculiar  to 
itself,  by  assuming  which  necessity,  historians  of  the 
church  have  not  only  hindered  the  progress  of  their 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  199 

readers,  but  gratuitously  planted  a  great  gulf  be 
tween  tins  part  of  history  and  every  other. 

§  l-iS.  The  rudest  and  crudest  form  of  historical 
composition  is  the  anecdotic  ;  in  which  the  mate 
rials  are  arranged  at  random,  or  as  they  come  to  the 
historian's  knowledge,  or  occur  to  his  mind  in  the 
act  of  writing. 

§  149.  The  first  step  towards  a  rational  method 
is  the  chronological  arrangement  of  events  in  the 
order  of  their  occurrence,  which  distinguishes  chron- 

'  O 

icles  or  annals,  both  from  anecdotes  on  one  hand, 
and  from  history  properly  so  called  upon  the  other. 

§  150.  But  this  step,  though  essential,  is  not 
sufficient  of  itself,  since  it  does  not  bring  together 
things  which  belong  together,  or  have  an  affinity 
arising  from  their  very  nature  ;  and  yet  this  is  the 
very  end  of  method. 

§  151.  The  next  step  towards  a  rational  method 
is  the  topical  arrangement,  or  the  combination  of 
things  mutually  similar  or  akin,  whether  contem 
poraneous  and  successive  or  not. 

§  152.  But  neither  is  this  sufficient  of  itself 
without  regard  to  chronological  order,  because  this 
order  is  essential  to  history,  and  if  neglected,  tho 


200  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

materials,  however  well  arranged  as  topics,  become 
wholly  confused,  or  lose  their  historical  character 
and  bearing. 

§  153.  These  two  methods  therefore — and  there 
seems  to  be  no  other  not  reducible  to  these — are 
both  essential,  not  apart  but  together,  and  must  be 
combined  in  order  to  produce  a  history ;  and  as 
this  combination  may  exist  in  different  proportions 
and  be  exhibited  in  various  shapes,  it  still  remains 
a  question  how  it  may  be  best  effected. 

§  154.  In  answering  this  question,  great  use 
may  be  made  of  previous  experience,  or  the  history 
of  the  efforts  which  have  been  made  to  solve  this 
problem.  (See  §  143.) 

§  155.  In  tracing  this  history,  however,  we  need 
not  go  very  far  back,  since  the  use  of  method,  prop 
erly  so  called  in  Ecclesiastical  History,  is  a  matter 
of  comparatively  recent  date. 

§  156.  The  ancient  writers  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  seldom  rise  above  the  simple  chronological 
arrangement,  and  are  often  wholly  arbitrary  or  for 
tuitous  in  their  arrangement,  as  may  be  seen  from 
the  example  of  Eusebius  and  his  followers. 

§  157.  The  first  genuine  attempt  at  the  solution 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOKY.  201 

of  this  problem  was  made  by  the  Magdeburg  Cen- 
turiators,  who  exhibit  for  the  first  time,  a  combined 
chronological  and  topical  arrangement  on  the  larg 
est  scale.  (See  §§  97-101.) 

§  158.  The  chronical  arrangement  of  this  great 
work  is  by  centuries,  for  which  the  singular  reason 
is  assigned,  that  there  is  really  a  cycle  or  complete 
revolution  of  events  in  every  hundred  years  ;  a 
theory  never,  perhaps,  generally  current,  or  long 
since  exploded. 

§  159.  The  topical  arrangement  under  each  cen 
tury  consists  of  fifteen  heads  or  rubrics,  with  a  pre 
fatory  summary  or  general  view,  making  sixteen  in 
all — viz.  :  1.  General  view.  2.  Extent-  of  the 
church.  3.  Its  external  condition.  4.  Doctrines. 
5.  Heresies.  6.  Kites.  7.  Polity.  8.  Schisms. 
0.  Councils.  10.  Bishops  and  Doctors.  11.  Her 
etics.  12.  Martyrs.  13.  Miracles.  14.  Jews. 
15.  Other  religions.  16.  Political  changes  affecting 
the  condition  of  the  church. 

§  160.  The  fourth  category,  that  of  doctrine,  is 
subdivided  into  more  than  fifty  heads,  the  mere 
titles  of  which  fill  eleven  folio  columns,  and  consti 
tute  the  framework  of  a  body  of  divinity,  as  full 

and  methodical  as  that  of  Tertullian. 
9* 


202  ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY. 

§  161.  The  extent  and  minuteness  of  this  topic 
shows  or  confirms,  what  is  certain  otherwise,  that 
the  immediate  purpose  of  this  great  work  was  po 
lemical  or  controversial ;  to  promote  which,  great 
minuteness  of  specification  was  required,  in  order 
to  assail  the  Church  of  Rome  at  as  many  salient 
points  as  possible. 

§  162.  It  appears  from  the  preface  or  prospectus 
of  the  work,  prefixed  to  the  first  Century,  that  the 
method  wTas  not  framed  by  induction  from  a  de 
tailed  survey  of  the  materials,  but  constructed  a 
priori,  as  a  framework,  in  or  under  which  the  ma 
terials,  when  collected,  were  to  be  digested. 

§  163.  It  appears  from  the  same  preface,  and 
from  an  inspection  of  the  work  itself,  that  this  pro 
visional  arrangement  was  originally  framed  with 
reference  to  the  early  centuries,  though  afterwards 
extended,  for  the  sake  of  uniformity,  to  all  the 
others,  without  any  change  whatever,  so  that  under 
each,  down  to  the  thirteenth,  we  find  the  rubric  of 
miracles  long  after  they  had  ceased,  and  that  of 
martyrs  when  there  were  no  persecutions,  except  so 
far  as  the  historians  were  tempted  to  admit  facti 
tious  or  imaginary  miracles  and  martyrs,  for  the 
very  sake  of  filling  up  their  pigeon-holes  or  niches. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  203 

§  164:.  The  three  facts  stated  in  the  last  three 
paragraphs  suffice  to  show  that  the  arrangement  of 
the  Centuries,  though  admirably  suited  to  a  tem 
porary  purpose,  was  neither  suited  nor  intended  to 
be  made  pei*petual,  but  is  expressly  represented  by 
its  authors  as  a  first  draught  in  an  untried  field,  ad 
mitting  and  requiring  subsequent  amendment. 

§  165.  And  yet  this  cumbersome  and  compli 
cated  system  has  given  character  to  subsequent 
historiography,  especially  in  Germany,  the  later 
changes  being  not  of  principle,  but  form,  and  all 
contributing  together  to  give  this  part  of  history  a 
character  peculiar  to  itself,  and  to  divorce  it  from 
all  others. 

§  166.  The  real  merit  of  the  plan  of  the  Centu- 
riators  is  its  adaptation  to  its  immediate  purpose, 
and  its  convenience,  even  now,  as  a  book  of  refer 
ence  in  polemic  theology,  arising  from  the  fulness 
and  minuteness  of  its  subdivisions,  aided  by  a  very 
complete  index  to  each  Century. 

§167.  But  however  useful  when  referred  to  as 
a  dictionary,  it  was  made  almost  useless  as  a  book 
to  be  continuously  read,  by  the  very  circumstances 
just  referred  to,  and  by  the  dispersion  of  facts  be 
longing  to  the  same  subject  under  different  and  dis- 


ECCLESIASTICAL   IIISTOKY. 

tant  heads ;  e.  g.  the  history  of  an  important  her 
esy  might  be  divided  between  No.  4  (doctrine),  No. 
5  (heresies),  No.  8  (schisms),  No.  9  (councils),  No. 
10  (bishops  and  doctors),  No.  11  (heretics),  and  No. 
15  (civil  or  political  events,  which  would  include 
the  action  of  the  government  in  all  its  changes). 

§  168.  The  influence  of  this  great  work  on 
method  was  naturally  less  in  other  churches,  and 
we  find  accordingly  some  Romish  writers  adopting 
a  much  simpler  plan,  such  as  the  biographical  ar 
rangement  of  Tillemont,  who  groups  all  incidents, 
as  far  as  possible,  around  certain  names  or  persons ; 
an  arrangement  highly  useful  in  imparting  life  and 
individual  interest  to  dry  details,  and,  therefore, 
often  revived  since,  among  the  rest,  by  Rudelbach 
and  Bohringer  of  late  years,  but  defective  as  a  form 
of  general  history,  because  some  topics  cannot  be 
reduced  to  it  without  an  artificial  violence,  sufficient 
to  condemn  it  as  an  aid  to  the  understanding  or  the 
memory. 

§  169.  But  besides  these  foreign  variations, 
changes  became  necessary  in  the  mode  of  treating 
Ecclesiastical  History,  even  in  Germany,  and  in  the 
Lutheran  church,  required  by  the  gradual  decline 
of  the  old  controversial  spirit,  or  rather  by  the  new 
forms  in  which  it  revealed  itself,  as  well  as  by  a 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  205 

gradual  change,  if  not  improvement,  in  the  public 
taste. 

§  170.  This  change  of  method  was  almost  in 
sensible,  and  spread  through  many  generations,  but 
may  be  said  to  have  attained  its  first  development 
and  elimination  in  the  Institutiones  of  Mosheim. 
(See  §§  118-120). 

§  171.  This  change,  however,  though  apparently 
so  great,  is  not  so  much  a  change  of  principle  as  of 
detail  and  outward  form,  consisting  in  the  simplifi 
cation  of  what  was  complex,  and  the  embellish 
ment  of  what  was  rugged  and  uncouth,  without 
departing  from  the  essential  features  of  the  older 
methods. 

§  172.  He  retains  the  centurial  arrangement, 
not  as  founded  in  the  nature  of  things  (see  §  158), 
but  as  commonly  preferred  and  universally  famil 
iar,  and  improves  it  by  distributing  the  centuries 
in  four  groups,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  form 
of  the  modern  periodologies. 

§  173.  In  his  topical  method  he  retains  the  ru 
brical  arrangement,  but  reduces  the  number  of  di 
visions,  and  adopts  a  more  symmetrical  adjustment, 
throwing  the  whole  under  the  two  heads  of  Exter 
nal  and  Internal  History,  dividing  the  former  into 


206  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

Prosperous  and  Adverse  changes ;  the  first  including 
all  additions  to  the  area  of  Christianity,  and  friendly 
relations  to  the  state  and  to  society  ;  the  latter  all 
contractions  of  the  field  by  conquest,  persecution, 
or  apostasy ;  while  under  the  internal  head  he 
groups,  1st,  the  history  of  learning,  education,  and 
philosophy  ;  2d,  Church  government  and  teachers  ; 
3d,  theology,  didactic,  biblical,  polemic,  moral ; 
4th,  rites  and  ceremonies ;  5th,  heresies  and  schisms. 

§  174.  That  this  is  really  the  old  Magdeburg 
method,  in  a  somewhat  improved  shape,  is  evident 
not  only  from  its  very  form,  but  from  its  practical 
effects,  as  we  still  have  heresies  and  heretics,  doc 
trine  and  doctors,  theologians  and  theology,  di 
vided  from  each  other  in  a  very  artificial  incon 
venient  manner,  so  that  the  author  is  compelled  in 
some  parts  of  his  work  to  abandon  his  own  method 
as  unmanageable,  even  by  himself. 

§  175.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  new 
impulse  given  to  historical  inquiry  by  the  sceptical 
criticism  (§§  122-124),  would  leave  the  method  of 
ecclesiastical  historiography  unchanged  ;  and  ac 
cordingly  we  find  new  methods  multiplying  very 
fast  within  the  last  half  century. 

§  176.  But  what  is   truly  strange  is  that   the 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  20 7 

Germans,  even  in  the  act  of  making  all  things  new, 
should  have  retained  the  rubrical  arrangement,  at 
least  in  its  essential  principle,  and  made  a  thorough 
change  only  in  the  chronological  arrangement  of 
the  subject. 

§  ITT.  This  change  consists  in  discarding  the 
centurial  arrangement  altogether,  as  a  framework 
of  the  history,  and  substituting  periods  of  unequal 
length,  determined  by  important  points  or  epochs, 
without  any  reference  to  the  centuries  at  all. 

§  ITS.  The  only  change  in  the  topical  arrange 
ment  is  a  formal  one,  consisting  in  a  further  im 
provement  upon  Mosheim's  plan  in  point  of  clear 
ness  and  simplicity,  and  the  reduction  of  the  heads 
to  the  smallest  possible  number  that  can  be  recon 
ciled  with  the  rubrical  principle  at  all,  which  prin 
ciple  is  still  retained  and  rigorously  carried  out. 

§  179.  These  modern  methods  vary  from  each 
other  in  detail,  but  the  essential  type  is  that  af 
forded  by  Meander,  who  reduces  all  the  topics  to 
four  heads  or  classes :  1.  The  enlargement  and  con 
traction  of  the  area  of  Christendom,  including  its 
relations  to  the  state  and  to  society.  2.  Its  organi 
zation,  government,  and  discipline.  3.  Its  doc 
trines,  controversies,  heresies,  and  theologians.  4. 


203  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

Christian  life,  including  worship,  with  its  rites  and 
forms,  and  practical  religion  as  exemplified  in  the 
lives  of  its  professors.  The  most  important  topic 
added  by  some  modern  church  historians  is  that  of 
Art  as  auxiliary  to  religion,  including  Poetry, 
Music,  Architecture,  Painting,  and  Sculpture,  so 
far  as  they  have  been  enlisted  in  the  service  of  the 
church. 

§  180.  This  latest  form  of  ecclesiastical  histori 
ography  appears  to  be  regarded  as  the  ultimatum 
of  improvement,  not  only  by  the  Germans  who  in 
vented  it,  but  by  their  imitators  and  disciples  else 
where,  who  sometimes  apologize  for  using  a  less 
scientific  and  more  popular  arrangement,  like  that 
employed  in  secular  or  general  history ;  as  if  this 
resemblance  were  a  necessary  evil,  and  not  the 
greatest  possible  advantage,  and  the  strongest  rec 
ommendation  of  the  method  which  exhibits  it. 
(Quote  as  an  example  the  last  paragraph  of  Robert 
son's  preface.) 

§  181.  It  may,  therefore,  seem  presumptuous, 
without  any  such  apology,  to  question  the  per 
fection  of  this  modern  and  fashionable  system,  so 
far  as  it  is  really  a  new  one,  by  objecting,  not 
(only)  to  its  details,  but  to  its  principle,  and  more 
especially  to  its  beginning  at  the  wrong  end  in  its 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  209 

process  of  improvement,  retaining  the  rubrical  ar 
rangement  notwithstanding  its  acknowledged  in 
conveniences,  and  making  a  thorough  alteration 
only  in  the  chronical  arrangement,  which  was  far 
less  objectionable  and  defective. 

§  182.  The  objection  made  by  this  school  to  the 
old  centurial  arrangement  is  that  it  is  arbitrary  and 
mechanical  ;  a  singular  contrast  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  who  supposed  it  to  be 
founded  in  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  provi 
dential  laws  which  govern  the  succession  of  events 
(§  158),  a  doctrine  which,  however  was  abandoned  (if 
it  ever  had  been  current)  by,  or  before,  Mosheim. 
(§ 


§  183.  The  fact  alleged  may  be  admitted,  but 
with  two  qualifications,  which  materially  influence 
its  force  as  an  objection  ;  first,  that  as  all  chrono 
logical  divisions  are  expedients  to  assist  the  mem 
ory,  not  arising  necessarily  from  something  in  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  but  the  fruit  of  "  art  and 
man's  device  ;  "  however  rational  and  well-con 
trived,  their  being  contrived  at  all  subjects  them  to 
the  charge  of  being  arbitrary,  and  to  some  degree 
mechanical  or  formal. 

§  184.  The   second  qualifying   circumstance  is 


210  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

really  included  in  the  first,  but  may  be  separately 
stated,  namely,  that  the  same  charge  lies  against 
the  very  methods  of  division  and  arrangement 
which  it  is  proposed  to  substitute  for  the  centurial ; 
since  every  period ology  that  has  ever  been  pro 
posed  is,  after  all,  an  artificial  framework,  which 
requires  some  effort  of  the  understanding  to  insert 
it  in  its  proper  place,  and  still  more  effort  of  the 
memory  to  keep  it  there. 

§  185.  Sometimes  this  vague  charge  is  made 
more  specific,  by  alleging  that  the  centurial  ar 
rangement  absurdly  presupposes  all  the  various 
series  of  events,  and  sequences  of  causes  and  effects, 
to  be  simultaneuosly  wound  up  at  the  end  of  every 
hundred  years  ;  whereas  the  threads  are  of  unequal 
length,  and  while  one  falls  short  of  the  century  an 
other  overruns  into  the  next. 

§  186.  But  besides  the  false  reproach  thus  cast 
upon  the  old  arrangement,  which  (except  in  the  case 
of  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators)  purports  to  be  only 
an  approximation  and  a  practical  convenience 
(§§  172-182),  this  plausible  objection  quietly  ig 
nores  the  fact,  that  the  very  same  thing  may  be 
said  with  equal  truth,  though  not  true  to  the  same 
extent,  of  every  periodical  arrangement  that  can  be 
imagined  ;  for,  however  nearly  such  divisions  may 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  211 

approach  to  the  ideal  standard,  it  will  not  be 
seriously  alleged  that  any  of  them  has  succeeded  in 
making  all  the  threads  of  history  coincident  in  their 
commencement  and  their  termination,  so  that  noth 
ing  overruns  the  mark  or  falls  short  of  it. 

§  1ST.  That  this  is  peculiarly  the  case  with  the 
centuries,  as  being  more  numerous  and  uniform,  is 
true ;  but  this  difference  of  degree  may  be  out 
weighed  by  peculiar  advantages  of  other  kinds ; 
such  as  perfect  uniformity  of  length,  requiring  no 
repeated  effort  of  the  understanding  or  the  memory 
to  retain  or  to  recall  them  ;  and  their  universal  use, 
not  only  making  them  still  more  familiar,  but 
maintaining  the  connection  between  this  and  other 
kinds  of  history,  which  all  peculiar  methods  tend 
to  weaken  and  destroy. 

§  188.  Another  qualifying  circumstance  in  fa 
vour  of  the  old  arrangement  is,  that  even  those  who 
are  most  zealous  for  the  Periods,  and  against  the 
Centuries,  are  after  all  obliged  to  make  the  latter 
the  substratum  of  their  own  plans,  not  only  by  re 
ferring  particular  events  to  such  and  such  a  cen 
tury,  but  by  ascribing  to  whole  centuries,  as  such, 
a  definite  distinctive  character ;  so  that  instead  of 
superseding  the  old  method  by  a  new  and  better 


212  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

one,  they  often  spoil  both  by  confounding  and  en 
tangling  them  together. 

§  189.  All  this  would  be  true  if  the  modern 
German  school  had  succeeded  in  uniting  upon  some 
one  scheme  or  system  of  great  periods  to  supersede 
the  centuries ;  but  how  much  more  when  the  re 
sults  are  so  endlessly  diversified,  that  there  seems 
ground  to  fear  that  the  process  of  invention  will 
defeat  itself,  by  making  all  points  salient  and  every 
notable  event  an  epoch. 

§  190.  Kor  is  it  merely  the  diversity  and  num 
ber  of  the  modern  periodical  arrangements  that  de 
tracts  from  their  utility,  but  also  their  exclusive 
character,  when  made  the  framework  of  a  general 
church  history ;  in  consequence  of  which,  he  who 
follows  Gieseler's  method  cannot  make  use  of 
Neander's,  even  in  the  way  of  reference,  without 
trouble  and  confusion,  since  the  same  event  which 
stands  at  the  beginning  of  a  period  in  one,  may 
stand  at  the  conclusion  of  a  different  period  in 
another;  to  say  nothing  of  the  general  dislocation 
and  distortion  which  result  from  the  comparison 
or  simultaneous  use  of  methods  so  unlike  and  so  ex 
clusive  of  each  other. 

§  191.  While  these  objections  may  be  made  to 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  213 

the  entire  change  introduced  into  the  chronical  ar 
rangement  of  Clmrcli  History  by  the  modern  Ger 
man  school,  there  arc  others,  of  a  very  different 
nature,  to  the  partial  change  effected  in  the  topical 
or  rubrical  arrangement,  over  and  above  the  gen 
eral  objection  which  has  been  already  stated  (§  181), 
that  it  is  a  partial  change  and  not  a  total  one. 

§  192.  The  essence  of  the  rubrical  arrangement, 
common  to  the  earliest  and  latest  German  church- 
historians,  is  the  practice  of  pursuing  every  topic, 
whether  there  be  few  or  many,  through  the  whole 
of  every  period,  whether  long  or  short,  and  then  be 
ginning  with  the  next  until  the  schedule  is  com 
pleted,  the  divisions  and  the  titles  being  absolutely 
uniform  in  every  case. 

§  193.  To  this  essential  feature  of  the  system  in 
vented  by  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  and  ad 
hered  to  even  by  their  harshest  critics,  notwith 
standing  endless  variations  in  detail,  and  vast  im 
provements  in  simplicity  and  symmetry  of  form, 
there  are  various  objections,  which  may  however  be 
reduced  to  three,  drawn  from  History,  Analogy, 
and  Experience. 

§  19J:.  The  historical  objection  to  the  rubrical  ar 
rangement,  as  above  described  (§  192),  is  that  it 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

originated  with,  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  and 
was  generated  in  the  violent  polemic  fermentations 
of  that  age,  a  genesis  which  raises  a  presumption 
adverse  to  its  permanent  utility,  since  every  age 
must  have  its  own  mode  of  assailing  error  and  de 
fending  truth,  even  when  the  truth  and  error  are 
unchanged,  and  since  the  world  has  long  ceased  to 
regard  Church  History  as  a  mere  offensive  weapon 
or  defensive  armour  in  religious  warfare. 

§  195.  If  this  objection  be  well  founded,  the 
mere  formal  changes  which  have  been  made  in  the 
rubrical  arrangement,  however  valuable  in  them 
selves  or  in  relation  to  some  other  standard,  do  not 
remove  the  ground  of  the  objection,  since  an  in 
crease  of  simplicity  and  symmetry  detracts  from 
the  original  efficiency  of  this  contrivance,  which 
arose  in  a  large  measure  from  the  very  features 
which  are  thus  removed,  without  relieving  its  de 
fects  and  inconveniences,  considered  as  a  means  to 
other  ends. 

§  196.  But  as  the  origin  of  this  plan  could 
afford  no  good  reason  for  condemning  and  rejecting 
it,  if  in  itself  good,  an  additional  objection  may  be 
drawn  from  the  analogy  of  history  and  histori 
ography  in  general,  to  wit,  that  the  method  now  in 
question  is  peculiar  to  Church  History  (except  so 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  215 

far  as  its  example  affected  the  practice  of  the  secu-. 
lar  historians),  having  never  been  found  necessary 
or  expedient  by  historians  of  any  other  class  or 
period,  ancient  or  modern,  sacred  or  profane ;  a 
circumstance  not  only  very  strong,  as  a  presump 
tive  proof,  at  least,  that  it  is  equally  unnecessary 
elsewhere,  but  a  key  to  the  otherwise  inexplicable 
difference  of  form  and  method,  between  this  one 
kind  of  history  and  every  other.  (§  147.) 

§  197.  Even  this  peculiarity  of  form,  however, 
would  be  quite  as  insufficient  as  its  mere  historical 
extraction,  to  condemn  the  method,  if  it  were  not 
open  to  the  practical  objection,  that  instead  of  ex 
citing  greater  interest  in  this  important  study,  it 
has  seemed  to  make  it  less  attractive,  and  instead 
of  aiding  the  memory,  which  some  have  made  a 
reason  for  adopting  it,  has  tantalized  and  weakened 
it,  by  endless  repetition  of  the  same  monotonous 
and  lifeless  forms  under  which  the  actual  variety  of 
history  is  lost  or  hidden,  like  soldiers  in  a  uniform, 
or  mummers  in  a  masquerade. 

§  198.  One  fact  may  be  considered  certain, 
however  it  may  be  explained,  to  wit,  that  no  such 
method,  or  at  least  no  such  extensive  and  detailed 
application  of  it,  would  be  tolerated  in  any  field  of 
history  where  a  less  artificial  arrangement  has  be- 


216  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

.come  familiar ;  as,  for  instance,  in  the  history  of 
the  American  and  French  .Revolutions,  or,  what  is 
nearly  the  same  thing,  the  lives  of  Washington  and 
Bonaparte,  in  writing  which,  although  the  ma 
terials  are  so  abundant  and  the  phases  or  aspects  of 
the  subject  so  diversified,  the  thought  of  dividing 
the  whole  matter  into  periods,  and  then  going 
through  or  over  each  in  several  successive  journeys, 
first  collecting  all  the  military  facts,  then  the  polit 
ical,  and  then  the  personal  or  private,  has  happily 
never  occurred  to  any  of  the  eminent  historians,  by 
whom  these  two  great  themes  have  been  succes 
sively  handled,  from  Marshall  to  Irving,  and  from 
Scott  to  Thiers. 

§  199.  On  the  strength  of  these  considerations, 
drawn  from  history,  analogy,  and  practical  effects, 
it  may  not  be  unlawful,  after  all,  to  attempt  an 
other  movement  in  advance,  by  improving,  if  pos 
sible,  on  both  parts  of  the  method  now  in  vogue,  to 
wit,  its  Chronological  and  Topical  arrangement ; 
especially  as  this  change  is  proposed,  at  least  in  the 
first  instance,  only  as  a  limited  experiment,  con 
fined,  both  in  its  good  and  bad  effects,  to  the 
classes  of  a  single  institution,  and  indeed  to  the  in 
structions  of  a  single  teacher. 

§  200.  With  respect  to  the  Topical  part  of  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  217 

system,  the  proposed  change  is  to  set  aside  the  ru 
brical  arrangement  altogether,  as  a  framework  run 
ning  through  the  history  and  determining  its  whole 
form,  and  to  substitute  a  natural  arrangement  of 
the  topics,  by  combining  a  general  chronological 
order  with  a  due  regard  to  the  mutual  relative 
importance  of  the  topics  themselves  ;  so  that  what 
is  prominent  at  one  time  may  be  wholly  in  the 
background  at  another,  instead  of  giving  all  an 
equal  prominence  at  all  times,  by  applying  the 
same  scheme  or  formula  to  all  alike. 

§  201.  This  natural  method,  so  called  to  distin 
guish  it  from  every  artificial  or  conventional  ar 
rangement,  far  from  being  new,  is  recommended  by 
the  practice  and  example  of  the  best  historians  in 
every  language  and  in  every  age  ;  affording  a  pre 
sumptive,  if  not  a  conclusive,  proof  both  of  its  the 
oretical  consistency  and  of  its  practical  efficiency 
and  usefulness,  and  at  the  same  time  a  convenient 
means  of  keeping  this  and  other  parts  of  universal 
history  in  mutual  connection  and  agreement  with 
each  other. 

§  202.  "With  respect  to  the  Chronical  division 
and  arrangement,  the  change  proposed  is  neither  to 
add  one  more  to  the  exclusive  schemes  already  ex 
tant,  nor  to  retain  any  one  of  them  exclusively  of  all 
10 


218  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

the  rest,  but  simply  to  avail  ourselves  of  all  of 
them,  so  far  as  they  can  be  combined,  both  as  in 
trinsically  valuable  aids  in  historical  study,  and  as 
a  means  of  making  all  the  most  important  sys 
tems  of  Church  History  alike  and  simultaneously 
available. 

§  203.  In  order  to  accomplish  this  design,  the 
chronological  arrangement  must  be,  as  far  as  possi 
ble,  separated  from  topical  details  ;  so  that  instead 
of  two  conflicting  methods  crossing  each  other,  and 
dividing  the  whole  subject  upon  different  and  often 
inconsistent  principles,  there  may  be  still  two 
methods,  and  the  same  two,  but  distinctly  and  suc 
cessively  presented,  not  promiscuously  mingled, 
both  in  the  foundation  and  the  superstructure  of 
the  history,  considered  as  a  building,  but  the  one 
(the  chronological  division)  underlying  the  other 
(the  topical  division),  as  a  basis  underlies  the  super 
structure  ;  or,  to  use  another  architectural  analogy, 
the  one  affording,  as  a  framework,  both  the  space 
and  the  form  into  which  the  other,  as  material,  is 
to  be  arranged  and  built. 

§  204.  This  idea  can  be  realized,  if  realized  at 
all,  only  by  taking  two  successive  views  or  surveys 
of  the  whole  field ;  one  more  general,  the  other 
more  particular  ;  one  conducted  on  a  chronical,  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  219 

other  on  a  topical  arrangement ;  or  in  other  words, 
by  making  the  chronological  division  of  the  subject 
introductory,  and  prior  to  the  topical  details,  which 
may  then  be  treated  in  the  form  and  order  which 
experience  may  indicate  as  most  convenient,  with 
out  any  subdivision  or  restriction,  except  such  as 
may  be  suggested  by  the  nature,  or  the  subject,  or 
the  taste  and  inclination  of  the  writer. 

§  205.  The  two  modes  of  division  and  arrange 
ment  being  thus  retained,  but  sundered,  we  obtain 
not  only  an  exemption  from  the  irksome  and  inju 
rious  necessity  of  breaking  off  in  the  examination  of  a 
topic  because  some  imaginary  line  is  reached,  and 
must  not  be  overleaped  till  every  other  topic  has 
been  brought  up  to  the  same  mark,  but  also  the 
opportunity  of  placing  side  by  side  as  many  chron 
ological  arrangements  as  we  please,  not  only  to 
compare  them  once  for  all,  but  to  retain  them  and 
employ  them,  both  as  aids  in  the  study  of  the  sub 
ject,  and  as  keys  to  the  respective  systems  which 
they  represent,  and  of  which  they  are  constituent 
elements  or  component  parts. 

§  206.  The  difference  between  the  method  here 
proposed,  and  that  which  it  is  meant  to  supersede, 
may  be  illustrated  by  the  actual  division  of  a  literal 
field  or  tract  of  land  by  a  system  of  walls  ancj 


220  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

ditches,  which  of  course  excludes  every  other  sys 
tem  of  the  same  kind,  since  the  combination  of  the 
two,  and  still  more  of  many,  would  cut  up  the  sup 
posed  field  into  irregular  and  useless  parts ;  whereas 
any  number  of  such  systems  may  be  drawn  on 
paper,  or  even  marked  upon  the  surface  of  the 
ground,  without  interference  or  collision,  and  per 
haps  with  great  facilities  of  mutual  comparison  and 
combination. 

§  207.  It  is  proposed  then  to  divide  the  course 
of  history  before  us  into  two  unequal  parts,  the  first 
and  lesser  part  consisting  of  a  general  survey  of  the 
whole  field,  and  of  the  various  ways  in  which  it 
has  been  or  may  be  divided  and  subdivided,  dis 
tributed  and  arranged,  for  the  purpose  of  a  more 
detailed  examination ;  the  second  and  larger  part 
containing  this  detailed  examination  itself,  in  the 
natural  order  of  its  topics,  unrestricted  by  the  pre 
vious  chronological  divisions,  but  with  all  the  ad 
vantage  of  assuming  and  referring  to  them,  as  a 
means  of  fixing  dates,  and  of  comparing  the  posi 
tions  occupied  by  any  given  topic  or  event  in  dif 
ferent  schemes  or  systems  of  Church  History. 

§  208.  The  first  of  these  surveys,  although  the 
least  thorough  and  extensive,  derives  great  relative 
importance  from  the  use  which  we  propose  to  make 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  221 

of  it,  as  the  foundation  or  the  framework  of  the 
other,  the  completeness  and  success  of  which  must 
therefore  be  dependent,  in  a  great  degree,  upon  the 
clearness  and  precision  of  this  introductory  and 
general  view. 

§  209.  The  confusion  and  complexity  which 
must  arise  from  an  attempt  to  look  at  various  peri- 
odologies  at  once,  may  be  avoided  by  surveying 
them  successively  and  seriatim,  just  as  the  face  of 
any  country  may  be  studied,  with  the  aid  of  skele 
ton  or  outline  maps,  by  confining  the  attention  first 
to  one  physical  feature,  such  as  mountains,  with 
the  natural  divisions  which  they  form  or  mark  out, 
then  proceeding  to  another,  such  as  streams  and 
water-courses ;  then  superadding  the  political  dis 
tinctions  and  designations ;  or  as  one  previously 
familiar  with  all  these,  may  use  a  railway  map 
of  the  same  region  without  difficulty  or  confusion. 

§  210.  But  in  order  to  pursue  this  gradual  pro 
cess  with  advantage,  it  is  important  to  begin  right, 
i.  c.  not  with  what  is  complex  and  obscure,  which 
would  defeat  the  end  at  once,  but  with  that  which 
is  comparatively  simple,  i.  e.  exhibiting  the  small 
est  number  of  dividing  lines  and  consequent  divis 
ions,  so  that  from  these  we  may  proceed  almost 


222  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

insensibly  to  those  of  a  more  minute  and  complex 
character. 

§  211.  Another  most  desirable  condition,  if  at 
tainable,  in  such  a  primary  division  of  the  subject, 
is  that  it  be  not  only  simple  in  itself,  but  familiar 
from  extensive  use  and  general  application. 

§  212.  If  these  two  qualities  could  only  be  had 
separately  and  apart,  it  might  be  hard  to  choose 
between  a  simple  method  little  known,  and  one 
more  complex  but  extensively  familiar. 

§  213.  By  a  happy  coincidence,  however,  both 
conditions  may  be  said  to  meet  in  one  mode  of  ar 
ranging  and  distributing  Church  History,  to  wit, 
the  division  into  three  great  periods,  the  Ancient, 
Middle,  and  Modern  Ages. 

§  214.  The  simplicity  of  this  mode  speaks  for 
itself,  while  its  previous  and  general  familiarity  ap 
pears  in  the  first  instance,  from  its  use  in  common 
parlance  and  in  general  usage,  which  have  few  ex 
pressions  more  familiar  than  that  of  "  Middle 
Ages,"  implying  both  the  others ;  and  then  from 
its  adoption  by  all  modern  church  historians,  either 
tacitly  and  indirectly,  as  by  Mosheim,  Gieseler,  and 
Neander,  or  avowedly  and  formally,  as  by  Guerickc, 
Hase,  [Medner],  Kurtz,  and  Schaff. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  223 

§  215.  The  reality  and  usefulness  of  these  divis 
ions  are  entirely  independent  of  precision  in  their 
boundaries  ;  as  the  latter  may  be  variable  and  doubt 
ful,  while  the  former  are  self-evident  and  palpable ; 
just  as  a  surveyor,  before  running  a  line  or  measur 
ing  a  foot,  may  obtain,  from  an  elevated  point  in  the 
tract  to  be  surveyed,  a  perfectly  distinct  impression 
of  its  principal  features, — water,  woodland,  meadow, 
tillage, — not  only  in  themselves,  but  in  their  rela 
tive  position  and  general  comparative  extent ; 
or  as  the  student  of  ancient  geography  may  learn 
as  much  as  can  be  known,  or  need  be  known,  as  to 
the  relative  position  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  and  the 
states  of  Greece,  without  any  bounding  lines  at  all, 
which  can  only  be  assigned  by  guess  ;  as  the  mod 
ern  geographer  or  politician  readily  distinguishes 
between  the  northern,  eastern,  middle,  southern, 
western  States  of  the  American  Union,  though  the 
lines  of  demarcation  may  be  variously  drawn  ;  as 
no  man  doubts  the  real  difference  between  child 
hood,  youth,  maturity,  and  old  age ;  or  between 
morning,  evening,  twilight,  night  ;  or  between 
the  seasons  of  the  year  ;  although  he  cannot  posi 
tively  draw  the  line  or  fix  the  point  where  any  one 
of  these  divisions  ceases  and  the  next  begins. 

§  216.  The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  theso 


224:  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

analogies  is,  that  even  if  we  were  without  any  defi 
nite  boundaries  whatever  between  these  three  great 
divisions  of  the  field  of  history,  the  divisions  them 
selves  might  be  distinctly  marked  and  usefully  em 
ployed,  the  difference  lying  not  in  the  edges,,  but 
the  central  map,  or  rather  in  the  whole  extent,  as 
the  prismatic  colours  of  the  rainbow  may  be  per 
fectly  distinguishable,  although  they  appear  to  fade 
into  each  other  by  a  vanishing  and  almost  imper 
ceptible  transition. 

§  217.  The  case  however  is  not  really  so  bad  as 
we  have  here  assumed,  there  being  a  tolerably  well 
defined  limit,  especially  between  the  Middle  Ages 
and  the  Modern,  which  are  universally  agreed  to 
be  divided  by  the  Reformation,  excepting  only 
some  extreme  ultramontane  Papists,  such  as  Postel 
(§  136),  who  makes  the  Reformation  a  mere  subdi 
vision  in  one  of  his  great  periods,  extending  from 
the  fall  of  the  Greek  Empire  to  the  close  of  the 
Council  of  Trent.  (§317.) 

§  218.  There  is  less  unanimity  in  reference  to 
the  boundary  between  the  First  and  Middle  Ages, 
because  the  transition  there  is  not  effected  by  a 
great  revolution  (religious,  intellectual,  and  social), 
which  is  always  definite  in  date,  because  sudden  in 
its  outbreak,  however  long  its  causes  may  have 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  225 

been  in  operation ;  but  by  a  plurality  of  changes 
which  reached  their  height,  or  attained  maturity  at 
different,  although  not  at  distant,  points  of  time,  just 
as  different  fruits  ripen  in  succession,  and  yet  all 
belong  to  the  same  season  ;  so  that  by  making  one 
or  another  of  these  changes  prominent,  we  gain  a 
somewhat  different  line  of  demarcation. 

§  219.  Although,  for  reasons  which  have  just 
been  stated  (§§  215,  216),  it  is  not  absolutely  nec 
essary  to  decide  between  these  various  boundaries, 
it  may  be  well  to  gain  a  general  knowledge  of 
them,  by  beginning  with  extremes,  i.  e.  with  the 
earliest  and  latest  limits  of  the  Ancient  period, 
which  have  been  proposed,  and  then  proceeding  to 
the  intermediate  lines,  or  those  which  have  been 
drawn  between  them. 

§  220.  The  earliest  limits  which  have  been  as 
signed,  to  the  Ancient  Period  or  First  Age  of 
Church  History  are,  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century  (Thiele),  when  persecution  ceased,  and  the 
church  became  united  with  the  state ;  and  the  close 
of  the  same  century,  when  the  empire  was  finally 
divided  into  two,  and  about  to  be  flooded  with  bar 
barians  (Koeppen),  both  which  make  the  First  Age 
too  short  in  proportion  to  the  others  for  any  practi 
cal  purpose.  Nearly  coincident  with  this  is  Mil- 
10* 


226  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

man's  ancient  period,  to  the  abolition  of  paganism 
in  the  empire. 

§  221.  The  latest  limit  which  has  been  assigned 
to  the  same  period  is  the  close  of  the  tenth  century, 
the  period  of  the  greatest  darkness  and  the  most 
extreme  depression ;  but  this  is  open  to  an  opposite 
objection. 

§  222.  Midway  between  these  two  extremes  is 
the  close  of  the  seventh  century,  after  the  sixth 
oecumenical  council,  which  seems  to  have  been  in 
dependently  selected  as  the  boundary  by  several 
historians  of  very  different  schools,  such  as  Alzog 
(§  136),  Kurtz  (§  135),  and  Palmer  (§  142),  who 
assigns  as  a  reason,  that  the  equilibrium  was  now 
disturbed,  -the  heresies  being  no  longer  counter 
balanced  by  the  "  holy  oecumenical  councils,"  nor  the 
losses  of  the  church  at  home  by  gains  abroad. 

§  223.  On  either  side  of  this  mean  line  two  others 
have  been  drawn,  which  arc  still  more  extensively 
adopted  ;  first,  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  re 
garded  by  many  of  the  older  writers  as  the  close  of 
the  ancient  period  and  of  the  series  of  Church 
Fathers,  and  substantially  adopted  by  Meander  and 
his  school,  because  the  hierarchy  was  there  complete 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  227 

in  the  person  of  the  first  pope,  Gregory  the  Great. 
(Guericke,  Jacobi,  SchafF,  Robertson,  Hawkins.) 

§  224.  Hase,  and  Kurtz  in  his  earlier  works, 
draw  the  line  at  the  close  of  the  eighth  century, 
when  the  centre  of  gravity  was  transferred  from 
the  Roman  to  the  German  side,  as  represented  by 
Charlemagne  and  his  successors.  (Mosheim,  "Wad- 
dington,  Lindner,  Frick.) 

§  225.  Amidst  these  variations  as  to  precise 
boundaries,  it  still  remains  true  that  the  three  great 
periods  are  distinct  and  distinguishable  ;  and  while 
the  choice  seems  to  lie  between  the  last  two  lines, 
it  may  be  well  to  retain  both,  as  distinct  but  com 
patible  divisions,  and  to  look  rather  at  the  great 
characteristic  feature,  than  at  the  precise  bounds  of 
the  periods  in  question. 

§  226.  As  an  aid  to  the  memory,  more  useful 
than  agreeable  to  good  taste,  the  three  great  Periods 
or  Ages  may  be  designated  by  single  words  as  the 
periods  of  Formation,  Deformation,  and  Reforma 
tion,  or  perhaps  in  better  English,  as  the  Forming, 
Deforming,  and  Reforming  periods,  a  nomenclature 
not  merely  arbitrary,  but  founded  on  the  mutual  re 
lations  of  the  periods,  since  Reformation  implies  pre 
vious  Corruption,  and  Corruption  original  formation. 


223  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  227.  But  as  every  period  has  more  than  one 
face  or  aspect,  and  cannot  therefore  be  exhaustively 
described  in  one  word,  the  three  ages  may  be  more 
precisely  though  less  pointedly  distinguished  as  (I.) 
the  period  of  Formation  and  Discipline  (not  ecclesi 
astical,  but  providential) ;  (II.)  the  period  of  Conso 
lidation  and  Corruption  (or  Petrifaction  and  Putre 
faction),  the  cessation  of  activity,  however  brilliant 
in  appearance  (like  the  reign  of  Solomon  compared 
with  that  of  David),  often  coinciding  with  incipient 
corruption  ;  (III.)  the  period  of  Reformation  and 
Division,  the  same  principle  which  wrought  the 
one,  tending,  when  pushed  to  an  extreme,  to  work 
the  other. 

§  228.  It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  descriptions 
of  the  three  great  periods  or  ages,  founded  upon 
partial  views,  and  more  especially  on  single  aspects 
of  their  relative  condition,  some  of  which  are  inge 
nious  and  just  in  theory,  though  not  always  practi 
cally  useful  or  available. 

§  229.  Such  is  SchafPs  description  of  the  first 
age  as  that  in  which  the  subjective  and  objective, 
or  the  individual  and  aggregate,  constituents  of  all 
church  history,  were  held  in  equilibrio,  or  kept  in 
due  proportion  to  each  other,  not  so  much  by  a  de 
liberate  and  conscious  effort,  as  by  providential 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  229 

causes ;  and  when  these  ceased  to  operate,  one  of 
the  elements  became  predominant,  and  "brought  to 
view  a  new  phase  of  the  history. 

§  230.  Thus  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  objective 
was  predominant,  the  right  of  private  judgment  and 
the  sense  of  personal  responsibility  being  merged  in 
the  authority  and  absolving  power  of  the  Church 
(which  is  the  fatal  spell  of  popery,  entirely  indepen 
dent  of  her  ceremonies  and  external  form) ;  while 
in  the  third,  or  present  period,  the  scales  are  re 
versed,  and  the  subjective  is  preponderant,  the 
right  of  private  judgment  and  the  sense  of  personal 
responsibility  having  (among  Protestants)  almost 
entirely  superseded  the  authority  of  the  Church. 

§  231.  From  these  vicissitudes  already  realized, 
the  author  ingeniously  prognosticates  a  fourth  age, 
yet  to  come,  in  which  the  equilibrium  shall  be  re 
stored  and  afterwards  maintained,  not,  as  in  the  first 
age,  by  accident  or  special  divine  interposition,  but 
by  conscious  co-operation  of  the  Church  itself,  en 
lightened  by  its  previous  experience. 

§  232.  Entirely  different  in  form  and  principle, 
but  equally  ingenious  and  one-sided,  is  the  ethnolo 
gical  distinction  last  proposed  by  Kurtz,  and  resting 
on  the  theory  of  three  successive  forms  of  civiliza- 


230  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

tion,  through  which  the  Church  is  to  pass,  the  Ori 
ental  (or  Jewish),  the  Classical  or  (Greco-Roman), 
and  the  Modern  (or  Germanic  in  the  wride  sense 
of  the  term  including  Anglo-Saxon)  ;  the  first  form 
corresponding  to  the  Old  Testament  history  and  the 
beginning  of  the  Apostolical ;  the  second  reaching 
to  the  close  of  the  eighth  century ;  and  the  third 
belonging  to  the  Modern  Ages,  the  Middle  Ages 
being  the  transition  from  the  Greco-Roman  to  the 
Germanic  form  of  civilization,  under  which  there 
are  included  intellectual  culture  and  social  condi 
tion. 

§  233.  As  no  one  of  these  partial  and  one-sided 
views  of  the  difference  between  the  three  great  pe 
riods  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  represent  them  to  the 
mind,  it  may  be  well  to  combine  the  truth  involved 
in  them  with  wThat  we  know  besides  as  to  the  char 
acter  of  these  three  ages,  in  a  general  description. 

§  234.  The  first  great  feature  of  the  Ancient 
Period  is  the  rapid  simultaneous  extension  of  the 
Church,  and  propagation  of  the  gospel,  in  various 
directions,  but  with  an  impetus  decreasing  as  we 
draw  near  to  the  Middle  Ages. 

§  235.  Another  is  the  long-continued  state  of 
persecution,  followed  by  relief,  patronage,  establish- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  231 

ment  or  union  with  the  state,  and  finally  enslave 
ment  by  it  and  subjection  to  it. 

§  236.  A  third  characteristic  is  the  gradual  ex 
pansion  and  development  of  church-organization, 
with  an  accompanying  effort  after  outward  unity, 
which  seems  at  the  close  of  the  first  age  to  be  at 
tained,  by  the  consummation  of  the  monarchical  de 
velopment  in  the  primacy  of  Rome,  or  the  com 
mencement  of  the  papal  power,  under  Gregory  the 
Great. 

§237.  A  fourth  feature  of  the  Ancient  Church 
is  its  conflict  with  error,  first  in  the  open  and 
avowed  hostility  of  Judaism  and  Heathenism,  and 
then  in  the  more  covert  and  insidious  eimiity  of  her 
esies,  arising  from  the  mixture  of  various  forms  of 
error  with  Christianity  itself,  leading,  before  the 
end  of  this  first  age,  to  the  discussion  and  settlement 
of  all  the  most  essential  doctrines  on  their  present 
basis. 

§  238.  The  last  characteristic  of  the  First  Age, 
is  the  absence  of  a  fixed  law  or  type  of  Christian 
experience,  there  being  ample  proof  that  personal  re 
ligion  did  exist  and  flourish,  but  with  a  freedom  and 
variety  of  inner  life  peculiar  to  the  times,  including 


232  ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOEY. 

many  eccentricities   and   aberrations,  not  without 
some  tokens  of  incipient  corruption. 

§  239.  The  first  great  negative  distinction  of  the 
Middle  Age  is  this,  that  it  originated  nothing  good, 
but  only  evil,  while  both  good  and  bad  things  of  an 
older  date  were  still  continued,  although  seldom 
without  some  exaggeration  or  corruption. 

§  240.  The  unity  which  seemed  to  be  secured  by 
the  erection  of  the  papal  see,  begins  immediately  to 
be  dissolved  by  means  of  the  Great  Schism  between 
East  and  "West, 

§  241.  The  theological  or  doctrinal  distinction  of 
the  Middle  Age,  is  the  vast  expenditure  of  thought 
and  labor  on  the  mere  elaboration  of  results  already 
gained  in  new  and  strange  forms,  more  especially 
the  mystic  and  scholastic,  and  the  tendency  to 
give  these  forms  a  stereotype  or  petrified  rigidity, 
which,  far  from  lessening  or  conciliating  heresy 
and  error,  made  them  more  numerous  and  desperate 
than  ever. 

§  242.  The  worst  peculiarity  of  this  age  is  the 
vast  increase  of  superstition  in  its  various  forms, 
with  its  invariable  accompaniment,  moral  deprava 
tion,  both  of  theory  and  practice. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  233 

§  243.  Its  only  redeeming  or  consolatory  feature 
is  the  under-current  of  determined  opposition  to 
these  evils,  the  reformatory  tendency  or  movement, 
running  through  the  Middle  Ages,  never  entirely 
wanting,  although  varying  in  strength  and  clear 
ness,  sometimes  appearing  even  in  the  dominant 
authorities,  at  others  only  among  those  who  were 
regarded  as  opponents  and  directors,  if  not  formally 
condemned  as  heretics  and  schismatics. 

§  244.  The  first  great  feature  of  the  Third  or 
Modern  Age  is  the  reaction  against  these  great  evils, 
the  secession  of  a  large  part  of  the  Latin  Church, 
and  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
with  a  more  or  less  complete  return  to  apostolical 
simplicity  and  purity,  all  which  is  summed  up  in 
the  word  Reformation. 

§  245.  Another  feature  not  to  be  neglected,  is 
the  influence  exerted  by  this  great  reaction  on  the 
residuary  church  itself  for  good  and  evil,  for  good 
in  the  correction  of  some  errors  and  abuses,  for  evil 
in  the  aggravation  and  perpetuation  of  others. 

§  246.  The  theology  of  this  age,  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  the  two  others,  is  learned  and  critical, 
with  tendencies  to  scepticism,  more  or  less  deter 
mined. 


234  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  24:7.  Iii  addition  to  the  old  division  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Church,  and  the  new  division  of 
the  latter  introduced  by  the  Information,  this 
period  is  characterized  by  further  subdivisions, 
such  as  that  of  the  Protestant  body  into  Lutheran 
and  Calvinistic  ;  and  of  these  parts  into  others,  by 
secession,  disruption,  or  excision. 

§  248.  Besides  this  tendency  to  subdivision, 
springing  from  the  use  or  abuse  of  the  right  of  pri 
vate  judgment,  within  the  pale  of  Christianity  itself, 
the  third  age  is  distinguished  by  a  rank  growth  of 
heresies,  both  old  and  new,  and  by  a  singular  vari 
ety  of  anti-Christian  errors,  or  new  forms  of  infidel 
ity,  disowning  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and 
abandoning  the  Christian  name. 

§  249.  An  intermediate  division  between  that 
of  the  Centuries  and  that  of  the  Three  Ages,  may 
be  obtained  by  grouping  the  former,  so  as  at  the 
same  time  to  divide  the  latter,  not  by  arbitrary 
lines,  but  by  discriminating  things  that  really 
differ 

§  250.  Thus  the  Early  Age,  or  Ancient  History, 
may  be  equally  divided,  supposing  it  to  consist  of 
six  centuries  (§  223),  by  a  line  drawn  at  the  close  of 
the  third  century  ;  the  first  half  differing  from  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY.  235 

second  as  a  period  of  persecution  from  one  of  es 
tablishment  ;  as  a  period  of  rapid  from  one  of 
slower  propagation  ;  as  a  period  during  which  the 
church  was  working  off  heretical  admixtures,  from 
one  in  which  it  was  positively  settling  the  great 
doctrines  of  religion. 

§  251.  The  seventh  and  eighth  centuries  may 
be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  debatable  or  neutral 

O 

ground,  like  a  lane,  or  narrow  strip  of  litigated  land 
between  two  farms,  which  may  be  added  to  either 
without  materially  affecting  any  thing  but  its  ex 
tent, 

§  252.  The  divisions  of  the  Middle  Ages  are  not 
so  obvious,  but  a  definite  basis  for  them  is  afforded 
by  the  extreme  depression  of  the  Church  in  the 
10th  century,  and  by  the  premonitions  of  the  He- 
formation  in  the  14th  and  15th. 

§  253.  Upon  this  basis,  the  Middle  Ages  may 
be  divided  into  three  unequal  parts ;  the  first  in 
cluding  centuries  VII. — X.  (or,  according  to  Hase 
and  Kurtz  IX. — .X)  during  which  there  was  a  grad 
ual  decline  from  the  position  of  the  ancient  Church 
to  its  lowest  condition  in  the  10th  century ;  the 
second  including  centuries  XI. — XIII.,  during  which 
there  was  a  rise,  but  in  a  different  direction,  a  new 


236  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

kind  of  activity  and  life,  and  during  which  the 
great  peculiar  movements  of  the  Age,  the  Papacy, 
Scholasticism,  Monachism,  reached  their  height  and 
full  development  ;  the  third  including  centuries 
XI Y. — XY.,  during  which  these  same  great  inter 
ests  declined,  and  the  reformatory  tendency  grew 
proportionally  strong  and  visible.  Though  the 
Last  or  Modern  Age  comprises  only  three  and  a 
half  centuries,  each  of  which  has  a  character  or  as 
pect  of  its  own,  it  may  still  be  divided  into  two 
larger  portions,  each  of  which  has  a  distinctive 
character  ;  the  first  consisting  of  the  16th  and 
17th,  and  characterized  by  the  Reformation  and 
its  positive  effects,  both  on  the  Protestant  and  Un- 
reformed  churches;  the  other  consisting  of  the 
18th  and  19th,  and  characterized  by  the  more 
negative  effects  of  the  same  causes.  (See  below, 
§§  273,  274.) 

§  254.  Besides  all  these  divisions,  it  is  well  to 
have  some  characteristic  features  of  each  century 
associated  with  it  in  the  memory,  the  points  se 
lected  being  few  in  number,  and,  as  far  as  possible, 
peculiar  to  the  periods  with  which  they  are  con 
nected. 

§  255.  As  a  mnemonic  aid,  some  use  may  be 
made  of  the  Latin  nomenclature  commonly  ascribed 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  237 

to  Cave  (§  113),  and  more  or  less  modified  by  later 
writers,  viz.,  1.  Seculuin  Apostolicum.  2.  Gnosti- 
cum.  3.  Novatianum  (v.  Cyprianum).  4.  Ari- 
anum.  5.  Kestorianum  (Pelagiarum,  v.  Augustinia- 
num).  6.  Entycliianum.  7.  Monothletieum  (v. 
Muhammedanicum).  8.  Iconoclasticum.  0.  Pho- 
tianiun  (v.  Obscurum).  10.  Obscurum  (v.  Tcne- 
brioscum).  11.  Ilildebrandicum.  12.  Waldense. 
13.  Scholasticum.  14.  Wiclifianum.  15.  Syno- 
dale.  16.  Reformatum. 

§  256.  In  characterizing  the  first  century  more 
particularly,  due  regard  must  be  had  to  its  unique 
position,  as  the  period  of  transition  from  an  old  to 
a  new  world,  from  the  Jewish  to  the  Christian 
Church,  and  from  Biblical  to  Ecclesiastical  History, 
only  the  smaller  part  of  it  belonging  strictly  to  the 
latter,  while  the  whole  may  be  divided  into  three 
nearly  equal  parts,  or  into  the  ministries  of  John 
the  Baptist  and  Jesus  Christ,  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  of  the  Apostle  John  ;  with  the  additional  as 
sociated  names  of  Nero  and  Domitian  as  persecu 
tors,  and  of  Simon  Magus  and  Ccrinthus  as  Ilere- 
siarchs. 

§  257.  The  second  century  presents  the  opening 
of  the  great  twofold  conflict  of  the  Church,  intellec 
tual  and  physical,  with  persecution  and  brute  force 


238  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

on  one  hand,  on  the  other  with  Judaism  and  Hea 
thenism  as  open  enemies,  and  with  heresies  arising 
from  their  fusion  or  amalgamation  with  Christian 
doctrine ;  both  which  conflicts  may  be  associated 
with  the  names  of  Trajan  and  the  Antonines  as  per 
secutors  ;  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Celsus  as  heathen 
opponents  of  the  truth  ;  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  and 
Justin,  as  martyrs  ;  the  latter  also  representing  the 
Christian  Apologists  or  champions  of  the  truth 
against  its  heathen  enemies,  and  the  Christian  Phi 
losophers,  or  Platonizing  theologians,  whose  ex 
cesses  partly  caused  the  Gnostic  heresies,  of  which 
the  great  opponent  was  Tertullian,  though  himself 
involved  in  the  very  different  error  of  the  Mon- 
tanists. 

§  258.  The  third  century  is  marked  by  its  dis 
ciplinary  schisms,  represented  by  Novatian  ;  its 
Catholicism,  represented  by  Cyprian ;  its  Greek  or 
Alexandrian  theology  and  learning  represented  by 
Origen,  who  was  also  the  most  eminent  opponent 
of  the  Monenchian  heresies,  to  which  may  be  added 
Manicheeism,  as  a  doctrinal  feature  of  the  age. 

§  259.  The  fourth  century  is  marked  by  the  end 
of  persecution  under  Constantino ;  the  end  of  pagan 
ism  under  Theodosius  ;  the  division  of  the  empire 
between  his  sons ;  the  first  and  second  general 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  239 

councils,  occasioned  by  the  Ariaii  and  Scmiarian 
heresies,  of  which  the  chief  opponents  were  Atha- 
nasius  and  the  three  Cappadocian  doctors  (Basil 
and  the  Gregories),  who  also  favoured  and  contrib 
uted  to  propagate  the  new  system  of  ascetic  and  mo 
nastic  life. 

§  260.  As  prominent  features  of  the  fifth  cen 
tury  may  be  named  the  Pelagian,  Kestorian,  and 
Eutychian  heresies ;  the  third  and  fourth  oecumenical 
councils,  at  which  they  were  condemned  ;  Chrysos- 
torn,  the  greatest  preacher,  Augustin,  the  greatest 
theologian  ;  and  Jerome,  the  greatest  biblical 
scholar  of  the  age ;  the  downfall  of  the  western 
Roman  empire  ;  and  the  conversion  of  the  Franks 
to  Christianity. 

§  261.  In  the  sixth  century  the  series  of  contro 
versies  and  of  councils  is  continued  by  the  Mono- 
physite  error  and  the  fifth  oecumenical  council ; 
while  additional  landmarks  are  afforded  by  the 
legislation  and  the  conquests  of  Justinian,  and  by 
the  full  development  of  the  hierarchy,  in  the  foun 
dation  of  the  papal  power  under  Gregory  the  First 
(or  Great). 

§  262.  The  series  of  ancient  doctrinal  controver 
sies  closes  with  that  of  the  Monothelites,  and  the 


240  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

series  of  ancient  councils  with  the  Sixth  and  the 
Quinisextum  ;  but  a  more  important  feature  of  the 
age  is  the  rise  and  progress  of  Mahometanism. 

§  263.  This  new  religion  made  still  further 
progress  in  the  eight  century  by  the  Moorish  con 
quest  of  Spain,  but  was  repelled  from  France  by 
Charles  Martel,  whose  son,  Charlemagne,  revived 
the  Western  Empire,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
temporal  power  of  the  Pope  by  his  donations  ; 
while  the  Germans  were  brought  within  the  pale  of 
the  Church  chiefly  by  the  labours  of  Boniface, 
thence  called  their  Apostle. 

§  26-i.  In  the  ninth  century,  the  new  preten 
sions  of  the  Papal  See  were  fortified  by  forged  de 
cretals,  under  the  auspices  of  Nicolas  I.,  who,  also, 
interfered  in  the  eastern  strife  detween  Photius  and 
Ignatius,  and  thus  contributed  to  the  great  schism ; 
while  the  western  church  was  agitated  by  the  prc- 
destinarian  controversy  begun  by  Godescalcus,  and 
the  broaching  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
by  Paschasius  Eadbert ;  the  reformatory  tendency 
being  represented  by  Claudius  of  Turin. 

§  265.  The  10th  century  is  the  lowest  depres 
sion  of  the  Church  at  large,  and  of  the  papacy  in 
particular,  which  was  a  mere  slave  of  political  par- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  241 

ties ;  so  that  we  have  to  look  for  great  names  to 
the  world,  such  as  Otho  the  Great  in  Germany,  and 
Hugh  Capet,  the  founder  of  a  new  dynasty  in 
Trance  ;  a  degradation  only  partially  redeemed  by 
the  monastic  organization  of  Clugny,  and  the  nomi 
nal  conversion  of  the  Scandinavian  and  Sclavonian 
races. 

§  266.  The  llth  century  opens  with  a  gen 
eral  panic  in  relation  to  the  end  of  the  world,  fol 
lowed  by  a  general  reaction ;  and  with  a  partial 
restoration  of  the  papacy  by  Gabert  or  Sylvester 
II.  ;  followed"  by  some  signs  of  intellectual  life  in 
the  Berengarian  controversy ;  which  is  connected, 
in  its  turn,  with  the  rise  of  Hildebrand,  afterwards 
Gregory  VII.,  the  founder  of  the  papal  theocracy, 
who  carried  it  out  in  theory,  and  in  practice  as  far 
as  he  was  suffered  by  the  violent  resistance  of  the 
German  Emperors,  particularly  Henry  IY. 

§  267.  The  12th  century  is  marked,  on  one 
hand,  by  its  chivalry,  crusades,  and  military  orders ; 
on  the  other,  by  the  conflict  between  mysticism  and 
rationalism,  represented  by  Bernard  and  Abelard  ; 
the  first  development  of  scholastic  theology,  repre 
sented  by  the  "  Sentences  "  of  Peter  Lombard ;  and 
a  new  reformatory  movement,  represented  by  Peter 
"Waldo,  the  reputed  founder  of  the  Waldenses ; 
11 


24:2  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

while  the  new  pretensions  of  the  Papacy  were  man 
fully  sustained  by  Alexander  III. 

§  268.  In  the  13th  century,  all  the  great  me 
dieval  interests  were  carried  to  their  height ;  the 
Papal  Power  by  Innocent  III. ;  the  Scholastic  The 
ology  by  Thomas  Aquinas ;  the  Monastic  Organi 
zation  by  St.  Francis  and  St.  Dominic ;  with  the 
last  of  whom,  or  his  immediate  successors,  we  may 
associate  the  Inquisition. 

§  269.  In  the  14th  century  begins  the  de 
cline  of  the  scholastic  theology,  with  a  correspond 
ing  rise  of  mysticism ;  the  end  of  the  Papal  The 
ocracy  with  Boniface  VHL,  followed  by  the  Baby 
lonish  Captivity  and  Papal  schism ;  the  rise  of  a 
vernacular  literature  in  Italy,  connected  with  the 
great  names  of  Dante  and  Petrarch  ;  and  a  power 
ful  attempt  at  reformation  made  by  Wiclif  and  the 
Lollards. 

§  270.  In  the  15th  century,  the  same  work  is 
continued  or  renewed  in  Bohemia  by  John  IIuss 
and  Jerome  of  Prague  ;  in  France,  by  the  Beform- 
ing  School  of  Paris ;  and  in  the  church  at  large, 
by  the  great  Reforming  Councils,  but  without  im 
mediate  success,  although  the  great  end  was,  more 
or  less,  promoted  by  certain  secular  events,  such  as 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOIiY.  243 

the  end  of  the  Greek  Empire,  the  Revival  of  Let 
ters,  the  Invention  of  Printing,  and  the  Discovery 
of  America. 

§  271.  The  great  feature  of  the  16th  century 
is  the  Reformation,  in  its  two  main  branches,  Ger 
man  and  Swiss,  together  with  its  introduction  into 
various  countries  ;  whether  temporary,  as  in  Spain 
and  Italy ;  or  partial,  as  in  France,  Hungary,  and 
Southern  Germany  ;  or  permanent,  as  in  Northern 
Germany,  Holland,  England,  Scotland ;  or  exclu 
sive,  as  in  Sweden  and  Denmark ;  while  in  the 
Unreformed  Church,  the  great  features  are  the  Or 
ganization  of  the  Jesuits  and  the  Council  of  Trent. 

§  272.  The  17th  century  is  marked  by  the 
consolidation  of  the  Protestant  churches  both  in 
creed  and  discipline ;  the  religious  war  of  Thirty 
Years,  which  ended  in  the  establishment  of  Protes 
tant  rights  at  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  ;  the  Great 
Rebellion,  Commonwealth,  and  English  Revolu 
tion,  and  the  introduction  of  the  church  into  Amer 
ica  by  colonization. 

§  273.  The  18th  century  may  be  character 
ized  as  a  period  of  revival,  revolution,  and  reac 
tion,  the  prominent  traits  of  which  are  Pietism, 
Moravianism,  Methodism,  English  Deism,  French 


244  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

Philosophy,  and  German-  Eationalism ;  the  great 
Revolutions  of  America  and  France. 

§  274:.  The  same  features  may  be  traced, 
through  the  first  half  of  the  19th  century,  in  the 
rise  and  fall  of  Napoleon ;  the  dismemberment  of 
the  Turkish  Empire  by  the  Greek  Revolution,  and 
of  the  Spanish  Empire  by  that  of  Mexico  and 
South  America  ;  the  second  and  third  French  revo 
lutions,  and  the  one  now  going  on  in  China ;  the 
disruption  of  the  Scotch  and  several  American 
churches ;  the  rise  of  Unitarianism,  TJniversalism, 
Irvingism,  Puseyism,  Socialism,  Communism,  Mor- 
monism,  Spiritualism  ;  while  the  great  redeeming 
feature  of  the  age  is  the  frequent  and  extensive  re 
vival  of  religion,  and  the  great  benevolent  move 
ment  in  the  Protestant  churches  for  the  circulation 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  diffusion  of  religious  knowl 
edge,  reformation  of  morals,  and  eventual  conver 
sion  of  the  world,  by  missionary  enterprises,  com 
prehending  in  their  scope  Pagans,  Mahometans, 
Jews,  and  those  living  under  the  corrupted  forms 
of  Christianity. 

§  275.  The  centurial  and  other  chronological 
arrangements,  which  proceed  upon  the  principle  of 
uniform  conventional  divisions,  have  been  su 
perseded,  in  the  modern  schools  of  ecclesiastical 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  245 

historiography,  by  periodologies,  or  schemes  made 
up  of  periods,  defined,  without  regard  to  length  or 
uniformity,  by  epochs,  i.  e.  turning  points  or  criti 
cal  junctures,  where  the  current  of  events,  or  tide 
of  history,  reaches  the  high-water  mark,  and  the  re 
flux  or  ebb  begins. 

§  276.  If  the  tide  or  current,  to  pursue  this 
figure,  were  a  single  one,  or  if  the  many  currents 
reached  their  height  at  once,  it  would  be  easy  to 
adopt  one  general  and  comprehensive  periodology  ; 
but  as  the  high  tide  of  one  stream  or  coast  is  not 
necessarily  or  always  that  of  every  other,  so  the 
crises  of  history  may  be  variously  chosen,  and  the 
exercise  of  this  choice  by  the  modern  writers,  has 
led  to  a  great  diversity  of  periodologies,  or  actual 
arrangements  founded  on  this  principle. 

§  277.  The  exclusive  use  of  any  one  of  these  not 
only  makes  the  others  unavailable,  but  deprives  us 
of  the  positive  advantages  attending  their  compara 
tive  or  joint  use,  which  are  chiefly  two ;  first,  in 
creased  facility  in  reading  or  referring  to  the  words 
in  which  they  are  embodied  ;  and  secondly,  the  aid 
which  they  afford  in  choosing  epochs  for  ourselves, 
by  showing  what  events  have  been  pointed  out  as 
such  by  eminent  historians. 


24:6  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

§  278.  In  selecting  from  a  multitude  of  perio- 
dologies,  devised  in  modern  times,  especially  in 
Germany,  our  choice  may  be  guided  by  several 
distinct  considerations,  sucli  as  the  celebrity  or 
eminence  of  the  inventor,  the  extensive  use  of  the 
arrangement  by  others,  and  its  intrinsic  convenience 
or  utility. 

§  279.  When  thus  selected,  they  may  be  ar 
ranged  for  actual  comparison,  to  most  advantage, 
in  the  order  of  their  dates,  as  this  enables  us  to 
trace  the  gradual  process  by  which  they  grew  out 
of  and  improved  upon  each  other. 

§  280.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  our  present  pur 
pose  to  confine  our  view,  at  least  in  the  first  in 
stance,  to  the  periodologies  of  Gieseler,  Neander, 
Guericke  (Jacobi),  Hase,  Kurtz,  and  Schaff,  as 
fairly  representing  the  improved  modern  methods, 
and  affording  us  the  use  of  what  is  really  most 
valuable  in  them  all. 

§  281.  Among  these,  Gieseler  is  entitled  to 
precedence,  not  only  as  one  of  the  most  eminent, 
but  also  as  the  oldest ;  for  although  he  speaks  of 
the  periodological  method  as  already  generally  in 
troduced,  and  of  its  actual  results  as  already  very 
various,  it  is  easy  to  perceive  from  his  own  arrange- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY.  24:7 

ment,  that  the  previous  attempts  were  compara 
tively  rude  and  unsuccessful. 

§  282.  In  order  to  illustrate  and  exemplify  the 
process  by  which  all  periodologies  are  framed,  it 
may  be  well  to  give  a  more  particular  description 
of  the  one  proposed  by  Gieseler,  than  will  be  neces 
sary  in  the  case  of  any  other,  as  the  principle  and 
modus  qperandi  are  substantially  the  same  in  all. 

§  283.  As  a  preliminary  fact  of  some  impor 
tance,  it  may  here  be  stated,  that  the  modern  peri 
odologies  vary  from  each  other  as  to  the  terminus 
a  quo  or  starting  point  of  Ecclesiastical  History ; 
some  going  back  to  the  Apostolic  Age,  or  to  the 
Life  of  Christ,  and  even  beyond  his  birth ;  while 
others  begin  at  the  close,  of  the  New  Testament 
history,  e.  g.  Neander,  who  has  treated  the  Evan 
gelical  and  Apostolical  History  in  independent 
works.  On  this  account,  the  terminus  a  quern  will 
be  considered  as  a  variable  line  or  point,  and  only 
stated  where  it  is  essential  to  the  completeness  or 
the  symmetry  of  the  arrangement. 

§  284.  The  periodology  of  Gieseler  is  deter 
mined  by  the  choice  of  three  great  turning  points 
or  junctures,  which  he  designates  as  primary 
epochs  : — I.  The  sole  reign  of  Constantino,  without 


24:8  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

a  rival  or  a  colleague,  from"  the  year  324.  II.  The 
outbreak  of  the  Iconoclastic  or  Image  Controversy 
in  the  year  726.  III.  The  Reformation,  from  Lu 
ther's  first  public  acts  as  a  Reformer,  in  the  year 
1517. 

§  285.  Before  and  between  these  primary 
epochs,  Gieseler  assumes  others,  of  less  prominence, 
but  still  distinctly  marked,  in  his  opinion,  as 
salient  points  and  critical  junctures.  These  are 
eight  in  number,  equally  distributed  among  the  in 
tervals  already  marked  out  by  the  others. 

§  286.  Anterior  to  the  first  great  epoch,  the  sole 
reign  of  Constantino,  the  minor  or  intermediate 
points  are  the  accession  of  the  Emperor  Adrian 
(A.  D.  117),  and  that  of  Septimius  Severus  (193). 
Between  the  first  and  second  (the  Iconoclastic  con 
troversy),  he  assumes,  as  secondary  epochs,  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  and  the  Monothelite 
controversy,  with  the  contemporaneous  rise  of  the 
Mahometan  religion  (622).  Between  the  second 
and  third  (the  Reformation),  his  subsidiary  epochs 
are  the  Pontificate  of  Mcolas  I.,  and  the  Pseudo- 
decretals  forged  with  his  connivance  (858),  and  the 
transfer  of  the  Papal  See  from  Rome  to  Avignon 
(1035).  Between  his  third  grand  epoch  and  his 
own  time,  he  assumes,  as  intermediate  points,  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  249 

Peace  of  "Westphalia  (1648),  and  the  fall  of  Napo 
leon  (1814). 

§  287.  33y  the  major  and  minor  epochs  thus  as 
sumed,  the  whole  field  is  divided  into  four  great 
periods,  and  each  of  these  subdivided  into  three 
others,  making  twelve  in  all 

§  288.  Gieseler's  first  great  period  extends  from 
the  beginning  of  the  subject  to  the  sole  reign  of 
Constantino  (324) ;  his  second  to  the  outbreak  of 
the  Image  controversy  (T26) ;  his  third  to  the  Ref 
ormation  (1517) ;  his  fourth  to  the  date  of  his  last 
volume  (1848). 

§  289.  The  first  subdivision  of  his  first  great 
period  ends  with  Adrian  (117) ;  the  second  with 
Septimius  Severus  (193) ;  the  third  with  Constan 
tine  (324). 

§  290.  The  first  subdivision  of  his  second  great 
period  ends  writh  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451) ; 
the  second  with  Mahomet  (622) ;  the  third  with  the 
Iconoclasts  (726). 

§  291.  The  first  subdivision  of  his  third  great 
period  ends  with  Nicolas  I.  (858)  ;  the  second  with 
the  transfer  of  the  Papal  See  to  Avignon  (1305)  ; 
the  third  with  the  Reformation  (1517). 
11* 


250  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  292.  The  first  subdivision  of  liis  fourth  great 
period  ends  with  the  peace  of  Westphalia  (1648) ; 
the  second  with  the  fall  of  Napoleon  (1814) ;  the 
third  with  his  own  times  (1848). 

§  293.  These  subdivisions  may  be  also  arranged 
in  a  continued  series,  with  some  advantage  to  the 
eye  and  memory.  1.  To  Adrian  (117).  2.  To  Sep- 
timius  Severus  (193).  3.  To  Constantine  (324). 
4.  To  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451).  5.  To  Ma 
homet  (622).  6.  To  the  Iconoclasts  (726).  7.  To 
Nicolas  I.  (858).  8.  To  the  transfer  of  the  Papal 
See  (1305).  9.  To  the  Keformation  (1517).  10. 
To  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  (1648).  11.  To  the  fall 
of  Napoleon  (1814).  12.  To  our  own  times  (1848). 

§  294.  This  periodology  bears  upon  its  face  suf 
ficient  indications  of  its  being  an  early,  although 
not  a  first,  attempt  at  such  arrangements ;  so  that 
it  has  met  with  little  currency  among  later  writers, 
either  as  a  whole,  or  with  respect  to  some  of  its 
particular  distinctions  and  divisions. 

§  295.  Specific  faults,  which  have  been  charged 
upon  it,  are  the  excessive  number  of  its  subdivisions, 
and  the  arbitrary  character  of  some  of  his  distinc 
tions  ;  for  example,  the  selection  of  the  Image  Con 
troversy  as  one  of  his  great  epochs,  although  less 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  251 

important  in  its  general  historical  relations  than 
some  others  which  might  have  been  selected  ;  and 
the  same  objection  has  been  made  to  several  of  his 
subdivisions,  for  example,  to  the  first,  second, 
fourth,  seventh,  eighth.  (§  293.) 

§  296.  Few  if  any  of  these  criticisms  can  be 
made  upon  Keander's  Periodology,  which  greatly 
excels  Giescler's  in  simplicity  and  symmetry,  as 
well  as  in  the  choice  of  the  particular  divisions  ; 
whether  this  superiority  arises  from  his  having  de 
signedly  improved  upon  his  predecessor,  or,  which 
is  made  more  probable  by  the  remarkable  diversity 
between  them,  from  an  independent  exercise  of 
taste  and  judgment. 

§  29 T.  Instead  of  Gieseler's  four  great  periods 
and  twelve  subdivisions,  Meander  assumes  six  great 
periods,  without  any  (chronological)  subdivisions. 
His  first  period  reaches  to  the  end  of  the  Diocletian 
Persecution,  on  the  accession  of  Constantino  the 
Great  (A.  D.  312)  ;  the  second  to  the  pontificate  of 
Gregory  the  Great  (590)  ;  the  third  to  the  death  of 
Charlemagne  (814) ;  the  fourth  to  Hildebrand  or 
Gregory  VII.  (1073) ;  the  fifth  to  Boniface  VIII. 
(1294) ;  the  sixth  to  Luther  or  the  Keformation 
(1517). 


252  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  298.  Guericke,  one  of  Meander's  most  faithful 
followers  (§  131),  adopts  his  periods,  completes 
them  by  adding,  as  a  seventh,  from  the  Reforma 
tion  to  the  date  of  his  own  last  edition  (1846),  and 
groups  the  seven  in  three  Ages,  the  first  instance 
known  to  me  of  this  arrangement.  (§§  213,  214). 

§  299.  Guericke's  division  into  Ages  is  unequal 
and  irregular,  assigning  two  of  Meander's  periods  to 
the  first  Age,  four  to  the  second,  and  making  the 
third  co-extensive  with  the  seventh  period,  added 
by  himself. 

§  300.  The  same  division  into  Ages  is  adopted 
by  Meander's  other  follower  and  condenser,  Jacobi, 
and  the  same  subdivision  of  the  first  or  Early  Age, 
beyond  which  his  published  work  has  not  yet  gone. 
(§  132.) 

§  301.  The  next  periodology,  in  point  of  time, 
is  that  of  Hase,  originally  published  a  year  after 
Guericke's,  agreeing  with  it  in  the  general  distribu 
tion,  but  exhibiting  a  great  improvement  on  it  in 
simplicity  and  symmetry,  as  might  have  been  ex 
pected  from  the  tastes  and  habits  of  the  author, 
who  appears  to  care  at  least  as  much  for  manner  as 
for  matter,  for  the  form  as  for  the  substance,  of 
Church  History.  (§  133.) 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  253 

§  302.  Hase,  like  Guericke,  divides  the  whole 
into  Ancient,  Medieval,  and  Modern  Clmrcli  His 
tory,  but  takes  as  the  dividing  line  between  the 
first  and  second,  not  the  end  of  the  sixth  century, 
or  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  the  Great  (590),  but 
the  institution  of  the  German  or  new  "Western  Em 
pire  by  the  coronation  of  Charlemagne  (800).  (See 
§  224.) 

§  303.  Each  of  his  ages  or  great  periods  is  di 
vided  into  two  by  a  single  intermediate  epoch  ;  the 
first  by  Constantine  (312) ;  the  second  by  Innocent 
III.  (1216) ;  the  third  by  the  Peace  of  "Westphalia 
(1648). 

§  304.  This  periodology  of  Hase  is  adopted, 
with  a  slight  modification,  by  another  popular  his 
torian,  Kurtz  (§  135),  who,  in  his  earlier  and  smaller 
works,  down  to  the  last  edition  (1856),  divides  into 
the  same  three  Ages,  but  as  a  line  of  subdivision  in 
the  second,  for  the  death  of  Innocent  III.  (1216), 
substitutes  the  accession  of  Boniface  YIII.  (1294), 
an  epoch  belonging  to  the  same  century,  but  mark 
ing  another  stage  in  the  progress  of  the  papacy, 
and  probably  adopted  for  the  sake  of  a  closer 
assimilation  to  Meander's  method.  (§  297.) 

§  305.  In  Kurtz's  larger  work,  which  is  not  yet 


254:  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

finished,  lie  adopts  a  different  arrangement,  founded 
on  the  theory  of  three  civilizations  (§  232),  accord 
ing  to  which  the  work,  so  far  as  it  has  yet  been 
published,  and  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Ecclesiastical 
History  in  the  strict  sense  (§  32),  is  divided  into  two 
great  Phases,  so  called,  and  not  Periods  or  Ages, 
because  not  entirely  successive  but  to  some  extent 
collateral  or  parallel,  and  therefore  properly  de 
scribed  as  Phases,  or  partly  contemporary  aspects 
of  the  same  objective  matter. 

§  306.  The  first  Phase,  according  to  this  scheme, 
is  the  developement  of  Christianity  under  the  an 
cient  classic  form  of  civilization,  from  the  end  of 
the  Apostolic  Age  to  the  downfall  of  the  Eastern 
or  Greek  Empire  (1453).  The  second  Phase  is  its 
developement  under  the  medieval  or  Germanic  form 
of  civilization,  from  the  fourth  to  the  fifteeth  centu 
ry  inclusive. 

§  SOT.  Each  of  these  Phases  is  chronologically 
subdivided  by  two  minor  or  intermediate  lines  ; 
the  first  by  the  end  of  the  Diocletian  persecution 
(312),  and  by  that  of  the  series  of  ancient  councils 
(692) ;  the  second  by  the  close  of  the  ninth  and 
twelfth  centuries  respectively. 

§  308.  The  most  finished  of  these  modern  peri- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  255 

odologies,  because  combining  the  advantages  and 
shunning  the  defects  of  those  which  preceded  it,  is 
that  of  SchafT,  in  which  the  general  arrangement  is 
the  same  with  that  of  Kurtz  and  Hase,  and  the" 
subdivision  no  less  symmetrical  in  form,  while  in 
fulness  of  detail  it  is  neither  so  minute  as  Gieseler 
nor  so  meagre  as  Hase. 

§  309.  Schaif  divides  the  wrhole  into  three  Ages  : 
I.  The  Primitive  or  Grasco-Latin  Church,  from  Pen 
tecost  to  Gregory  the  Great  (590).  II.  The  Medi 
eval  Church,  or  Romano-Germanic  Catholicism,  from 
Gregory  the  Great  to  Luther  (151T).  HI.  The  Mod 
ern  or  Evangelical  Protestant  Church,  in  conflict 
with  the  Church  of  Rome,  from  Luther  to  our  own 
time  (1853). 

§  310.  Each  of  these  Ages  he  divides  into  three 
periods  ;  the  first  into  the  period  of  the  Apostolical 
church  until  the  death  of  John  (100) ;  that  of  the 
Persecuted  Church  to  Constantino  (311) ;  and  that 
of  the  Established  Church  of  the  Grseco-Roman 
Empire,  to  Gregory  the  Great  (590). 

§  311.  The  second  he  divides  into  the  Rise  of 
the  Middle  Age,  or  the  planting  of  the  church 
among  the  Germanic  races,  till  the  appearance  of 
Hildebrand  (1049) ;  the  Height  of  the  Middle  Age 


256  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

(Papacy,  Monachism,  Scholasticism,  Mysticism),  to 
Boniface  YIIL  (1303) ;  and  the  decline  of  the  Mid 
dle  Age,  and  preparation  for  approaching  changes, 
until  Luther  (1517). 

§  312.  The  third  he  divides  into  the  period  of 
the  Reformation,  or  Productive  Protestantism  and 
Reacting  Romanism  (century  XVI.) ;  that  of  Or 
thodox-confessional  and  scholastic  Protestantism, 
in  conflict  with  ultramontane  Jesuitism  and  semi- 
Protestant  Jansenism  (to  the  middle  of  century 
XVIII.) ;  and  that  of  negative  subjective  Protest 
antism — Rationalism  and  Sectarianism — with  pre 
monitions  of  a  new  or  fourth  age  (to  the  middle  of 
the  19th  century). 

§  313.  These  smaller  periods,  like  those  of  Gies- 
eler  (§  293),  may  be  also  arranged  in  a  continued 
series  :  1.  To  the  death  of  John  (100).  2.  To  Con 
stantino  (311).  3.  To  Gregory  the  Great  (590). 
4.  To  Hildebrand  (1049).  5.  To  Boniface  VIII. 
(1294).  6.  To  Luther  (1517).  7.  To  the  end  of  the 
16th  century.  8.  To  the  middle  of  the  18th.  9.  To 
the  middle  of  the  19th. 

§  314.  "With  these  select  periodologies,  when 
thoroughly  mastered  and  familiar,  it  may  be  im 
proving  to  compare  some  others,  in  a  more  rapid, 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY.  2 57 

and  less  thorough  manner,  for  the  purpose  of  ob 
serving  both  their  general  agreement,  and  the 
points,  whether  great  or  small,  in  which  they  differ. 

§  315.  Engelhardt  assumes  five  great  epochs, 
I.  The  conversion  of  Constantine,  and  conse 
quent  establishment  of  Christianity  in  the  Roman 
Empire.  II.  The  rise  of  Mahometanism,  and  con 
sequent  contraction  of  the  Church,  particularly  in 
the  East.  III.  The  reaction  of  the  West  against  this 
hostile  power  in  the  Crusades,  and  the  elevation  of 
the  hierarchy  to  a  monarchy.  IY.  The  Reforma 
tion,  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  age  and  a  thorough 
change  throughout  the  Church.  Y.  The  securing 
of  the  civil  rights  of  Protestants,  in  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia  as  a  condition  of  their  free  develope- 
ment. 

§  316.  "With  these  epochs  he  defines  six  periods : 
1.  From  Christ  to  Constantine  (625).  2.  From  Con 
stantine  to  Mahomet  (600).  3.  From  Mahomet  to 
Gregory  YIL  (1073).  4.  From  Gregory  to  Luther 
(1517).  5.  From  the  Reformation  to  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia  (1648).  6.  From  the  Peace  of  West 
phalia  to  his  own  time  (1830). 

§  317.  The  simplest  periodology  is  that  of 
Thiele,  who  assumes  the  three  divisions  which  are 


258  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

common  to  almost  all  arrangements  :  I.  From 
Christ  to  Constantine.  II.  From  Oonstantine  to 
Luther.  III.  From  Luther  to  his  own  time  (1840). 

§  318.  Lobegott  Lange  has  five  periods,  corre 
sponding  to  as  man y  stages  in  the  progress  of  the 
hierarchy.  The  first  extends  to  the  Council  of 
Nice  (325) ;  the  second  to  the  developement  of  the 
Romish  monocratical  hierarchy,  under  Gregory  the 
Great  (590) ;  the  third  to  its  completion  under 
Gregory  the  Seventh  (in  the  last  third  of  the 
eleventh  century) ;  the  fourth  to  its  decline  and  fall 
in  many  states  of  Europe  at  the  Reformation  (in 
the  first  third  of  the  sixteenth  century)  ;  the  fifth 
from  the  Reformation  to  his  own  time  (1846). 

§  319.  Two  of  these  periods  are  subdivided : 
the  first  into  (1)  the  period  of  Primitive  Christianity 
(Urchristenthum)  until  the  developement  of  Ecclesi 
astical  Hierarchy,  and  (2)  the  interval  between  that 
and  the  developement  of  the  Aristocratical  Hierar 
chy  ;  the  fourth  into  the  (1)  Decline  and  (2)  Fall  of 
the  Romish  Monocratic  Hierarchy. 

§  320.  Medner,  one  of  the  most  profound  and 
accurate  modern  German  Church  Historians,  but,  at 
the  same  time,  one  of  the  most  obscure  and  intri 
cate,  adopts  the  division  into  three  great  periods  or 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY.  259 

Ages,  but  terminates  the  first  in  the  middle  of  the 
eighth  century,  and  the  second  at  the  end  of  the 
loth  ;  subdividing  the  three  ages  very  unequally, 
the  first,  besides  the  Apostolical  and  earlier  history, 
into  (1)  the  conflict  with  Groeco-Roman  heathenism 
(second  and  third  centuries),  (2)  with  oriental  hea 
thenism  (fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  centuries) ;  (3) 
with  Islam  and  Heathendom  in  the  East  and  West 
(seventh  and  eighth  centuries) ;  the  Second  or  Mid 
dle  Age  into  the  Foundation  of  the  Medieval 
Church  (from  the  middle  of  the  eighth  to  the  mid 
dle  of  the  llth  century),  its  completion  (from  the 
middle  of  the  llth  to  the  end  of  the  13th),  and  its 
decline  (during  the  14th  and  15th) ;  the  Third  or 
Modern  Age  into  (1)  the  Reformation,  or  the  con 
flict  of  Protestantism  and  Roman  Catholicism 
(during  the  IGth  century)  ;  (2)  the  Ecclesiastical 
and  Doctrinal  developement  of  both  (to  the  middle 
of  the  IS tli  century) ;  (3)  the  scientific  and  sceptical 
developement  of  Protestantism  (to  the  middle  of  the 
19th  century). 

§  321.  Lindner,  a  younger  writer  of  great  merit, 
assumes  three  Ages,  the  first  being  that  of  the  de 
velopement  of  Christianity  in  the  Grseco-Roman  form 
(during  the  first  eight  centuries)  ;  the  second  the 
strife  of  the  Greece-Roman  and  Germanic  civilization 


260  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

(during  the  next  seven  centuries) ;  the  third  the 
triumph  of  Germanic  culture  in  the  Reformation 
(during  the  last  three  centuries). 

§  322.  He  divides  each  age.  into  two  smaller 
periods,  and  characterizes  each  of  these,  first  "  po 
litically,"  then  "  dogmatically  ;  "  his  first  period, 
extending  to  311,  being  that  of  the  church  under 
heathen  persecution,  and  employed  in  excluding 
the  Judaic  and  heathen  element  from  its  theology  ; 
the  second,  extending  to  814,  that  of  its  establish 
ment  and  ultimate  subjection  to  the  state. 

§  323.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  his  first  period,  ex 
tending  to  1294,  is  that  of  the  subjection  of  the 
state  to  the  church,  and  of  the  civil  to  the  canon 
law,  and  also  that  of  the  scholastic  reproduction  of 
theology,  together  with  the  first  signs  of  reaction 
and  reformatory  movement ;  his  second  period,  ex 
tending  to  1517,  is  that  of  the  emancipation  of  the 
state  from  the  thraldom  of  the  hierarchy,  and  the 
develop ement  of  nationalities,  and  also  that  of  con 
flict  between  the  Roman  and  Germanic  mind  in 
doctrinal  discussion,  with  still  clearer  marks  of  a 
reforming  tendency. 

.    §  324.  In  the  third  Age,  Lindner's  first  division, 
extending  to  1648,  is  the  period  of  Protestant  tri- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  261 

umph  over  Popisli  oppression,  but  subjection  to  the 
Protestant  state,  and  of  purified  doctrine  in  conflict 
with  Roman  stiffness  and  enthusiastic  laxity ;  his 
second  period  is  that  of  pietistical  reaction  against 
church  and  state,  and  effort  after  free  organization, 
together  with  the  conflict  of  the  true  doctrine  with 
the  extreme  forms  of  pietism  and  rationalism. 

§  325.  Fricke  retains  the  usual  distinction  of 
three  Ages,  but  terminates  the  first  at  Charle 
magne's  original  accession  to  the  throne  (768),  and 
describes  it  as  comprising  the  rise  of  Christianity 
till  the  settlement  of  the  great  doctrines  and  of  the 
constitution  in  the  form  of  papal  monarchy ;  the 
second  as  the  period  or  age  of  doctrinal  stagnation 
and  of  papal  usurpation,  with  opposition  and  reac 
tion,  both  in  church  and  state ;  the  third  as  the  age  of 
advancing  freedom  and  political  security,  popish  re 
action  and  revival,  Protestant  orthodox  rigidity,  and 
general  effort  after  peace  and  union  not  yet  realized. 

§  326.  The  German  Eoman  Catholic  Church 
historian  Abzog  (§  136)  also  adopts  the  favdurito 
division  into  three  Ages  and  six  periods,  the  first 
age  being  that  of  the  Church  in  the  Greece-Roman 
Empire,  and  comprising  the  first  seven  centuries  ; 
the  second  that  of  the  Church  in  the  Germanic  and 
Slavonic  races,  from  the  fourth  to  the  15th  cen- 


262  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

tury,  inclusive  ;  the  third  from  the  "  Western 
Schism,"  as  he  calls  the  Reformation,  to  the  present 
time.  The  first  age  he  divides,  as  usual,  by  Con- 
stantine  (313) ;  the  second  he  divides  by  the  acces 
sion  of  Gregory  VII.  (1073),  and  subdivides  by  the 
death  of  Charlemagne  (814),  and  Boniface  YIII. 
(1303) ;  the  third  age  he  divides  by  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia  (1648). 

§  32 7.  Yery  different  from  this,  and  evidently 
calculated  for  the  meridian  of  France  not  Germany, 
is  the  periodology  of  the  ultramontane  French  his 
torian  Postel  (§  136),  who  assumes  eleven  periods, 
1.  From  Christ  to  Constantino  (313).  2.  To  the 
fall  of  the  Western  Empire  (476).  3.  To  Mahomet 
(622.)  4.  To  the  death  of  Charlemagne  (814). 
5.  To  the  first  crusade  (1095).  6.  To  the  death  of 
St.  Louis  (1270).  7.  To  the  fall  of  the  Eastern 
Empire  (1453).  8.  To  the  close  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  (1563),  including  the  Eeformation  (§  217). 
9.  To  the  death  of  Louis  XIY.  (1715).  10.  To  the 
elevation  of  Pius  VII.  (1800).  11.  To  the  eleva 
tion  of  Pius  IX.  (1846). 

§  328.  Of  the  recent  English  writers  on  Church 
History  (§  141),  Hardwick  treats  only  of  the  Middle 
Ages  and  the  Reformation ;  Blunt  of  the  first  three 
centuries ;  Robertson  of  the  first  six,  which  he  divides 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  263 

like  Neander,  whose  periods  are  also  adopted  by 
Waddington.     (§  140.) 

§  329.  Somewhat  different  is  the  periodology  of 
Palmer  (§  142),  though  he  likewise  assumes  five 
great  periods  without  subdivision :  I.  That  of  the 
Pure  and  Persecuted  Church  (to  320).  II.  That  of 
Heresies  and  Holy  (Ecumenical  Councils  (to  680). 
UL  That  of  Ignorance,  Worldliness,  and  Supersti 
tion,  with  pious  reaction  and  extensive  conversions 
(to  1054).  IY.  That  of  Schism  between  the  East 
and  "West,  and  of  the  height  and  decline  of  the 
Papal  usurpation  (to  1517).  Y.  That  of  Refor- 
mation  and  Resistance,  Schism  and  Inlidelity  (to 
1839). 

§  330.  The  periodology  of  Milman  (§  139),  is 
confused  by  extreme  minuteness  and  by  complica 
tion  with  a  topical  arrangement,  so  that  it  is  not 
easily  compared  with  those  already  mentioned,  but 
deserves  attention,  not  only  on  account  of  his  gen 
eral  celebrity,  but  as  a  key  to  his  two  important 
works  upon  Church  History. 

§  331.  Milman's  first  work  (§  139)  extends  from 
the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  abolition  of  Paganism  in 
the  Roman  Empire,  and  is  divided  into  books  and 
chapters,  partly  on  a  chronical  and  partly  on  a 


264  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

topical  method.  His  second  work,  the  History  of 
Latin  Christianity,  extends  to  the  Pontificate  of 
Mcolas  Y.  and  is  divided  by  the  author  into 
fourteen  Periods,  as  he  calls  them,  although  some 
of  them  are  not  strictly  Periods  "but  Topics. 

§  332.  The  first  of  these  "  Periods  "  extends  to 
the  Pontificate  of  Damasus  and  his  two  successors 
(366-401) ;  the  second  to  Leo  the  Great  (461) ;  the 
third  to  the  death  of  Gregory  the  Great  (604) ;  the 
fourth  to  the  coronation  of  Charlemagne  (800)  ;  the 
fifth  to  the  end  of  his  dynasty  (996) ;  the  sixth  in 
cludes  the  series  of  German  Pontiffs  (1061) ;  the 
seventh  that  of  Italian  Pontiffs,  beginning  with 
Gregory  YII.  (1073)  ;  the  eighth  the  strife  about 
investiture  (during  the  12th  century) ;  the  ninth 
the  height  of  the  Papacy,  to  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  Law,  under  Gregory  IX.  (1238) ;  the  tenth 
the  conflict  of  the  Popes  and  Emperors  (to  the 
death  of  Innocent  IY.  1254) ;  the  eleventh  the  tri 
umph  of  the  Papacy  until  broken  under  Boniface 
YIII.  (who  died  1303) ;  the  twelfth  the  Babylonian 
Captivity  till  1370  ;  the  thirteenth  the  Papal  schism, 
the  reforming  councils,  and  attempts  at  union  with 
the  Greeks  ;  the  fourteenth  medieval  art  and  revi 
val  of  letters.  A  concluding  topic  is  the  advance 
of  reformation  and  the  rivalry  of  Latin  and  Teu 
tonic  Christianity. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOKY.  265 

§  333.  From  the  definition  previously  given  (§ 
275)  of  the  periodological  arrangement,  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  makes  use  of  epochs  only  to  define  its 
periods,  as  the  surveyor  plants  his  stakes  for  the 
purpose  of  his  measurements  or  observations,  and 
when  these  are  finished,  removes  or  leaves  them, 
which  he  would  not  if  the  stakes  had  an  intrinsic 
value,  or  were  useful  for  another  purpose. 

§  331.  ISTow  the  epochs  used  in  framing  periodol- 
ogies  are  also  valuable  in  themselves,  or  independ 
ently  of  this  use,  as  salient  and  turning  points  in 
history,  to  know  which  is  a  wide  step  towards  the 
knowledge  of  the  history  itself,  but  to  select  which 
the  beginner  is  incompetent,  unless  assisted  by  the 
judgment  of  the  best  historians,  as  expressed  in 
the  selection  of  particular  epochs  as  the  basis  or  the 
framework  of  their  periodologies. 

0 

§  335.  In  order  to  apply  them  to  this  use,  it  will 
be  found  a  salutary  exercise  to  separate  them  from 
the  periodologies  of  which  they  form  a  part,  espe 
cially  when  this  is  clone,  not  by  mere  transcription 
or  dictation,  but  by  the  personal  exertions  of  the 
individual  student,  to  encourage  which  the  follow 
ing  suggestions  are  presented,  drawn  from  personal 
experience. 
12 


266  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  336.  Let  all  the  epochs  be  collected  from  as 
many  distinct  periodologies  as  may  be  thought  de 
sirable,  for  instance  from  the  twenty  which  have 
been  described  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  (§§  284 
-332)  or  from  the  six  selected  specimens  first  stated, 
and  placed  in  a  continued  series,  without  reference 
to  their  position  in  the  several  periodological  ar 
rangements. 

§  337.  Then  let  this  aggregate  or  gross  amount  be 
reduced  by  eliminating  all  that  does  not  properly 
fall  under  the  description  of  an  epoch,  as  for  instance 
when  a  century,  or  half  a  century,  its  first  third,  or 
its  last  third,  are  employed  as  periodological  distinc 
tions,  these  being  not  real  epochs,  but  expedients 
borrowed  from  the  old  centurial  method. 

§  338.  Let  the  list  thus  shortened  be  reduced 
still  further  by  consolidating  dates  which  really 
represent  one  epoch — such  as  the  six  dates  in  the 
reign  of  Constantino,  his  accession  (311),  his  decrees 
of  toleration  (312,  313),  the  beginning  of  his  sole 
reign  (323,  324),  and  the  first  (Ecumenical  Council 
(325) ;  or  the  two  dates  in  the  life  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  his  accession  (590)  and  his  death  (604) ;  or 
the  corresponding  points  in  the  history  of  Boniface 
Till.  (1294  and  1303) ;  or  the  three  in  that  of  Char 
lemagne,  his  original  accession  (T68),  his  coronation 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY,  267 

as  Emperor  (800),  and  Ins  death  (814) ;  or  the  two 
in  that  of  Gregory  VII.,  his  original  appearance 
(1049),  and  his  election  to  the  Papacy  (1073) ;  or  the 
two  dates  assigned  to  the  beginning  of  the  Reforma 
tion  (the  beginning  of  the  century  and  the  year 
1517). 

§  339.  The  epochs  thus  reduced  in  number,  may 
be  then  distributed  by  centuries,  not  as  a  permanent 
arrangement,  but  for  the  purpose  of  observing  the 
difference  between  the  centuries,  as  to  the  frequency 
or  paucity  of  critical  or  turning  points,  some  having 
none  in  the  preceding  period ologies  (viz.  the  1st,  3d, 
and  12th),  some  only  one  (viz.  the  Cth,  10th,  and 
17th),  some  two  (viz.  the  2d,  9th,  15th,  16th,  and 
18th),  some  three  (viz.  the  8th  and  14th),  some  four 
(viz.  the  5th,  7th,  and  19th),  some  five  (viz.  the  llth 
and  13th),  and  one  seven  (viz.  the  4th,  if  every  date 
be  separately  counted),  but  if  all  that  really  belong 
together  be  consolidated,  only  two.  These  differ 
ences,  although  to  some  extent  fortuitous,  must  have 
some  basis  in  the  true  relations  of  the  several  cen 
turies  to  one  another. 

§  340.  Another  method  of  comparison  is  to  ob 
serve  how  many  of  the  given  periodologies  agree  in 
recognizing  any  epoch,  which  may  be  regarded  as 
an  indication  of  the  extent  to  which  it  is  acknowl- 


268  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

edged  by  historians  as  a  turning  point   or  critical 
juncture. 

§  34:1.  By  the  application  of  this  process  to  the 
periodologies  which  have  been  described,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  Reformation,  has  a  place  in  twelve, 
the  reign  of  Constantino  in  ten,  that  of  Charlemagne 
in  nine,  the  pontificate  of  Boniface  VIII.  in  eight, 
that  of  Gregory  VII.  in  seven,  that  of  Gregory  the 
Great  in  six,  and  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  in  an 
equal  number. 

§  342.  I^ext  to  the  epochs  which  are  thus  found 
in  from  half  a  dozen  to  a  dozen  modern  periodolo 
gies,  and  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  most  ex 
tensively  acknowledged,  we  may  place  a  second 
class,  containing  such  as  have  a  place  in  three  peri 
odologies,  as  the  third  French  Revolution,  or  in 
two,  as  the  appearance  of  Mahomet  in  the  seventh 
century,  the  close  of  the  series  of  great  councils 
near  the  end  of  the  same,  and  the  fall  of  the  Greek 
Empire  in  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth. 

§  343.  To  these  two  classes  may  be  added  a  resid 
uary  class  of  indefinite  extent,  containing  all  those 
epochs  which  are  found  in  only  one  periodology, 
and  which  are  therefore  recommended  only  by  the 
Voice  of  individual  historians,  but  which  may  never- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  269 

tlielcss  be  real  junctures  in  the  history,  and  therefore 
valuable  aids  in  understanding  and  retaining  it. 

§  344:.  From  the  periodologies  described  above, 
omitting  some  dates  which  seem  to  be  ill-chosen  and 
unsuited  to  the  end  proposed,  especially  in  Milman's 
list  (§  332),  we  may  obtain  the  following  residuary 
catalogue,  arranged  in  chronological  order.  The 
reign  of  Adrian  (117),  Septimius  Severus  (193),  Pon 
tificate  of  Damasus  (3G6),  Council  of  Chalcedoii 
(451),  Leo  the  Great  (461),  Fall  of  the  Western  Em 
pire  (476),  Iconoclasm  (726),  Nicolas  I.  (858),  End 
of  Carlovingian  Dynasty  (996),  Breach  between 
East  and  West  (1054),  First  Crusade  (1095),  Death 
of  Innocent  III.  (1216),  Gregory  IX.  and  the  Canon 
Law  (1238),  Death  of  St.  Louis  (1270),  Babylonish 
Captivity  (1305),  Papal  Schism  (1375),  End  of  Tri- 
dentine  Council  (1563),  Death  of  Louis  XIY.  (1715), 
Accession  of  Pius  VII.  (1800),  Fall  of  Napoleon 
(1814),  Second  French  Eevolution  (1830),  Accession 
of  Pius  IX.  (1846). 

§  345.  The  best  mode  of  using  the  epochs  thus 
arranged  and  classed,  is  first  to  master  those  of  the 
first  order,  as  most  generally  recognized  ;  and  then, 
when  these  are  perfectly  familiar,  to  pursue  the 
same  course  with  the  second,  after  which  the  resid- 


270  ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOEY. 

nary  class  can  be  gradually  added,  and  at  the  same 
time  indefinitely  enlarged. 

§  346.  Another  useful  method  of  the  same  kind 
is  to  frame  successively  lists  or  tables,  each  contain 
ing  nineteen  dates,  or  one  for  every  century,  the 
choice  of  which,  if  made  by  the  student  himself,  in 
volves  an  exercise  of  mind  which  must  be  useful  in 
proportion  to  the  difficulties  that  attend  it. 

§  347.  The  following  may  be  taken  as  a  specimen 
of  such  a  table,  not  to  be  permanently  rested  in, 
but  often  and  indefinitely  varied.  Century  I.  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  (70),  II.  Martyrdom  of  Justin  (163), 
III.  Decian  Persecution  (250),  IY.  Council  of  Nice 
(325),  Y.  Fall  of  Western  Empire  (476),  VI.  Greg 
ory  the  Great  (590),  VII.  Mahomet  (622),  VIII. 
Iconoclasm  (726),  IX.  Death  of  Charlemagne 
(814),  X.  Accession  of  Otho  the  Great  (936),  XL 
Gregory  VII.  (1073),  XII.  Alexander  III.  (1159), 
XIII.  Boniface  VIII.  (1294),  XIY.  Wiclif  (1360), 
XV.  Fall  of  Eastern  Empire  (1453),  XVI.  Luther 
(1517),  XVII.  Peace  of  Westphalia  (1648),  XVIII. 
"Wesley  (1732),  XIX.  Fall  of  Napoleon  (1814). 

§  348.  When  the  points  in  such  a  list  are  really 
salient,  they  will  indicate,  in  some  degree,  the  great 
changes  as  they  follow  one  another  ;  as  for  instance 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOllY.  271 

in  the  table  just  presented,  although  not  framed 
with  any  such  design,  we  find  martyrdom  (century 
II.)  and  persecution  (III.)  followed  by  the  first 
(Ecumenical  Council  (IV.) ;  the  degradation  of  the 
Church  in  the  ninth  and  10th  centuries  suggested 
by  the  choice  of  emperors  to  represent  them ;  the 
subsequent  rise  of  the  papacy  by  the  choice  of 
three  popes  to  represent  as  many  centuries  (XI. 
XII.  XIII.),  its  decline  and  the  growth  of  the  refor 
matory  tendency,  by  the  position  here  assigned  to 
Wiclif  (XIV.),  &c.,  &c. 

§  319.  Such  tables  may  be  constructed  either  on 
the  principle  of  varying  the  epochs,  i.  e.  choosing 
sometimes  one  kind  of  event  and  then  another ;  or 
on  that  of  sameness,  making  all  the  points  in  any 
given  table  similar  to  one  another,  e.  g.  making  out 
a  series  of  great  councils  or  assemblies,  beginning 
with  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  in  the  first  century, 
and  ending  with  the  First  Free  Church  Assembly 
in  the  nineteenth ;  or,  finally,  avoiding  both  ex 
tremes,  as  in  the  specimen  first  given. 

§  350.  The  materials  for  such  lists  may  be  drawn, 
in  the  first  instance,  from  the  pcriodologies  already 
given ;  then  from  the  topical  details  to  be  given 
hereafter ;  thirdly,  from  books  of  history,  whether 
thoroughly  studied  .or  skimmed  over  for  this  very 


272  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

purpose ;  and  lastly  from  the  chronological  tables, 
found  in  most  such  books  or  elsewhere,  which  last, 
however,  unless  used  with  moderation,  will  deprive 
the  student  of  the  benefit  arising  from  his  own  exer 
tions. 

§  351.  Having  taken  our  first  or  chronological 
survey  of  the  whole  field,  we  may  now  proceed,  in  exe 
cution  of  our  plan  (§  207),  to  the  second  or  topical  sur 
vey  of  the  same  ground,  beginning,  as  before,  with 
the  definition  of  terms,  suggested  by  their  etymology. 

§  052.  From  the  Greek  TOTTO?  meaning  place, 
coincs  (1)  the  adjective  topical,  used  in  medicine  as 
the  equivalent  of  local,  from  the  Latin  locus,  and  (2) 
the  noun  topic,  applied  by  the  ancient  writers  in  a  pe 
culiar  technical  sense  to  certain  parts  of  rhetoric  and 
logic,  as  in  the  topics  of  Aristotle  and  Cicero,  and 
in  theology  to  the  usual  divisions  (loci  communes) 
of  the  system  of  doctrine  (whence  our  popular  usage 
of  commonplace  for  that  which  is  familiar,  trite,  or 
hackneyed),  but  in  history  and  other  sciences  to  their 
subdivisions  or  constituent  parts. 

§  353.  The  name  is  not  properly  applied  to  insu 
lated  facts,  as  such  considered,  which  are  rather 
anecdotes,  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term,  as  de 
noting,  primarily,  inedited,  unpublished  facts,  and 


ECCLESIASTICAL    I1ISTOKY.  273 

then  detached  or  separate  historical  materials  ;  the 
accessory  idea  of  something  humorous  or  entertain 
ing  being  altogether  popular  and  adventitious. 

§  35:1.  The  same  fact  or  event  which,  in  itself 
considered,  is  an  anecdote,  as  just  defined,  may  be  a 
topic  when  regarded  as  holding  a  specific  place  in 
history  considered  as  a  systematic  whole. 

§  355.  But  although  the  meaning  of  the  word 
has  been  determined,  a  question  still  presents  itself, 
in  reference  to  the  thing  which  it  denotes.  What 
constitutes  a  topic  ?  and  how  are  the  topics  of 
Church  History  in  particular  to  be  determined  ? 

§  356.  Xot  every  individual  fact — nor  even  every 
great  event — can  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  dis 
tinct  historical  topic  ;  because  such  fact  or  event 
may  be  inseparable  from  others,  or  at  least  from  its 
own  minor  and  accompanying  circumstances  ;  just 
as  in  a  landscape,  a  particular  object,  as  a  tree  or 
house,  may  be  so  situated  with  respect  to  others, 
that  it  cannot  be  surveyed  apart,  or  constitute  a 
separate  object  of  vision.  This  is  sometimes  true 
of  a  whole  series  of  successive  events  or  a  whole 
congeries  of  contemporary  facts,  which  must  be 
viewed  together,  in  order  to  constitute  a  definite 
historical  topic. 
12* 


274  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  357.  We  may  now  complete  the  definition  of 
a  topic,  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  for  our  purpose,  as 
a  fact,  or  a  series  or  a  group  of  facts,  forming  one 
definite  object  of  historical  investigation,  and  occu 
pying  a  definite  place  in  history,  considered  as  a 
systematic  whole. 

§  358.  The  essential  element  in  this  complex  idea, 
that  of  distinct  objectivity,  may  vary  in  the  case  of 
different  persons,  some  being  able  or  accustomed  to 
take  in  more  at  a  single  view  than  others ;  so  that 
no  selection  or  arrangement  of  topics  is  to  be  re 
garded  as  alone  admissible  exclusively  of  every 
other. 

§  359.  Even  in  one  and  the  same  topical  arrange 
ment,  it  is  best  not  to  aim  at  an  exact  uniformity, 
either  in  quantity  or  quality,  but  to  let  it  be  con 
trolled  by  circumstances,  the  topic  being  sometimes 
one  event,  such  as  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar,  and 
at  other  times  a  series  or  system  of  events,  such  as 
the  Reformation  or  the  French  Revolution. 

§  360.  This  liberty  of  choice,  and  flexibility  of 
method,  far  from  being  a  defect  or  disadvantage,  as 
compared  with  mathematical  rigour  and  exactness,  is 
one  of  the  great  charms  of  historical  study,  and  its 
loss  one  of  the  worst  effects  of  all  exclusive  methods. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOKY.  275 

§  361.  There  are  two  methods  of  selecting  and 
arranging  historical  topics,  which  may  be  distin 
guished  as  the  Analytic  and  Synthetic,  in  the  strict 
etymological  sense  and  application  of  those  terms. 

§  362.  The  synthetic  method  begins  with  the 
minute  details,  and  groups  them,  first  in  smaller, 
then  in  larger  combinations,  so  as  finally  to  form 
great  masses  ;  while  the  analytic  method  takes  these 
masses,  and  divides  and  subdivides,  eliminates  and 
simplifies,  until  it  reaches  the  constituent  elements 
with  which  the  synthesis  began. 

§  363.  "While  both  these  processes  are  useful  in 
their  proper  place,  and  may  be  both  employed  al 
ternately,  though  not  together,  the  last  is  better 
suited  to  our  purpose,  since  by  descending  from 
generals  to  particulars,  a  basis  is  secured  for  the  fu 
ture  study  of  details  ;  whereas  minute  attention  to 
the  latter  could  extend  to  but  a  few,  even  of  these, 
without  imparting  any  general  views  whatever. 

§  36i.  For  the  study  of  a  lifetime,  or  for  original 
investigations,  similar  to  those  of  Gieseler  or  Mean 
der,  the  synthetic  method  may  be  best,  but  not  for 
a  brief  academical  course,  wholly  preparatory  in  its 
purpose. 


276  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  365.  Another  distinction  which  may  possibly 
be  useful  is,  that  between  trc  o  ways  of  viewing  the 
particular  topics  when  determined  or  selected  ; 
either,  on  the  one  hand,  as  mere  subdivisions  of  an 
organic  whole,  without  individual  vitality  or  sepa 
rate  existence,  like  the  counties  in  a  State,  or  the 
departments  in  France ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  as 
so  many  organic  wholes,  forming  a  greater  whole 
by  federal  combination,  like  the  Swiss  cantons  or 
the  States  of  our  Union. 

§  366.  Though  both  these  views  involve  some 
truth,  and  may  be  turned  to  good  account,  the  first 
is  better  suited  to  the  exact  sciences  than  to  history, 
which  consists  in  the  aggregation  of  innumerable 
facts,  not  necessarily  dependent  on  each  other,  and 
yet  all  related,  and  susceptible  of  rational  as  well  as 
arbitrary  combination. 

§  36T.  Instead,  therefore,  of  assuming  certain 
periods,  and  then  cutting  these  into  strips  or  slices 
by  a  uniform  or  rubrical  division,  we  may  let  each 
topic  reach  as  far  as  it  will,  or  as  w^e  find  conven 
ient,  using  chronological  divisions,  not  to  cut  them 
up,  but  simply  to  mark  the  surface,  like  the  shadow 
on  a  dial. 

§  368.  Ecclesiastical  History,  thus  viewed,  is  a 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  277 

congeries  of  minor  histories,  each  of  which  is,  in  a 
certain  sense,  complete  within  itself,  but  in  another 
sense,  incomplete  without  the  rest. 

§  369.  The  number,  size,  and  form  of  these 
minor  histories  is  not  determined  by  the  nature  of 
the  subject,  or  by  any  other  extrinsic  necessity,  but 
is  variable  and  discretionary,  so  that  no  exclusive 
method  is  either  practicable  or  desirable. 

§  370.  So  great  is  this  variety  and  liberty  of 
combination,  that  the  same  event  may  enter  into 
more  than  one  of  these  particular  histories,  or  may 
be  treated  both  as  a  separate  topic  and  as  a  compo 
nent  of  one  more  extensive. 

§  371.  It  would  be  easy  to  divide  the  whole 
field  of  Ecclesiastical  History  into  a  few  great  topics 
or  minor  histories,  running  through  its  entire  chron 
ological  dimensions  ;  such  as  the  history  of  Mis 
sions  or  of  Church  Extension,  that  of  Church  Or 
ganization,  that  of  Doctrine,  &c.  But  this  would 
be  only  a  slight  modification  of  the  rubrical  meth 
od,  011  a  larger  scale,  and  therefore  more  unmanage 
able  than  when  divided  into  centuries  or  periods. 

§  372.  The  same  objection  does  not  lie  against 
some  other  similar  divisions,  such  as  the  biographi 
cal  division  into  lives,  or  personal  histories,  or  that 


278  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

into  the  history  of  Councils,  Controversies,  Churches ; 
all  which  have  their  own  advantages,  but  none  of 
which  can  possibly  be  made  to  comprehend  all 
the  materials  or  topics  of  Church  History. 

§  373.  The  best  method  therefore  is,  instead  of 
any  uniform  and  rigid  rule  of  distribution  and 
arrangement,  to  select  the  topics  for  ourselves,  tak 
ing  sometimes  one  event  and  sometimes  many,  as 
the  subject  of  investigation,  and  dividing  and  com 
bining  them  to  suit  our  own  convenience,  and  the 
end  which  we  have  immediately  in  view. 

§  374.  The  general  arrangement  must  of  course 
be  chronological ;  because  all  history,  from  its  very 
nature,  is  so  ;  because  this  order  throws  the  most 
light  on  the  mutual  relation  of  events  ;  and  because 
it  gives  the  most  aid  to  the  student's  memory. 

§  375.  In  selecting  the  topics  of  Ecclesiastical 
History,  it  is  best  to  begin  with  some  connecting 
link  between  it  and  Biblical  History — some  event 
whose  causes  reach  back  and  their  effects  forward, 
so  as  to  touch  both  great  divisions  of  the  subject. 

§  376.  Such  an  event  is  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem,  A.  D.  70,  only  six  or  seven  years  after  the 
close  of  the  ISTew  Testament  history,  and  yet  many 
years  before  the  probable  date  of  the  Apocalypse. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  279 

§  377.  But  besides  its  date,  it  is  also  recom 
mended  by  the  connection  of  its  causes  and  effects 
with  the  history  of  the  Church. 

§  378.  The  proximate  causes  of  this  great  catas 
trophe  were  the  growing  fanaticism  and  insubordi 
nation  of  the  zealots,  on  one  hand,  and  the  cowardly 
but  cruel  domination  of  the  Roman  procurators  on 
the  other ;  both  which  causes  seem  to  have  grown 
worse  and  worse  after  the  death  of  Christ,  as  if  in 
execution  of  a  special  divine  judgment. 

§  370.  Our  principal  authority  in  reference  to 
this  great  event  is  Flavins  Josephus,  a  Jew  of 
sacerdotal  lineage,  and  a  commander  in  the  Jewish 
war,  but  afterwards  highly  favoured  by  the  Romans, 
and  therefore  accused  by  his  own  people  of  apos 
tasy,  and  regarded  by  many  Christians  also  as  un 
worthy  of  belief,  wrhile  others  go  to  the  opposite 
extreme  of  preferring  his  testimony  to  that  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  the  truth,  as  usual  in  such  cases,  lying 
between  the  two. 

§  380.  The  providential  instruments  of  this 
destruction  were  the  Roman  armies,  first  under 
Yespasian,  and  when  he  was  recalled  to  Rome  by 
the  death  of  Yitellius,  under  his  son  Titus,  the 
delicise  humani  generis,  who  used  to  say  "  Perdidi 


280  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

diem  "  when  lie  liad  performed  no  act  of  beneficence ; 
a  character  probably  exaggerated  by  the  heathen 
writers,  and  measured  by  the  heathen  standard,  but 
the  comparative  excellence  of  which  is  proved  by 
his  conduct  in  this  siege,  when  Jews  and  Gentiles 
seemed  to  have  changed  places,  the  impious  despe 
ration  of  the  former  being  strangely  contrasted  writh 
the  moderation  and  humanity  of  Titus. 

§  381.  The  details  of  this  event  may  be  found 
in  Josephus,  Prideaux,  Milman,  Kurtz,  and  others ; 
we  are  concerned  only  with  its  religious  and  eccle 
siastical  effects. 

§  382.  Its  effects  upon  the  Jews  has  reference 
to  their  government,  their  religion,  and  their  per 
secutions. 

§  383.  The  political  effect  was  to  destroy  the 
Hebrew  state  or  commonwealth,  virtually  at  once, 
finally  and  formally,  under  Adrian,  when  an  insur 
rection,  under  a  false  Messiah,  called  Earlochba, 
led  to  the  demolition  of  the  city,  the  erection  of 
another  under  the  name  of  Capitolina,  and  the  ex 
pulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Palestine,  since  which 
time  they  have  had  no  existence  as  a  nation  or  a 
body  politic. 

§  381.  As  the  Hebrew  Church  was  a  theocracy, 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  281 

in  which  church  and  state  were  not  only  united  but 
identified,  the  Jewish  religion,  as  distinguished 
from  the  Christian,  fell  with  the  state,  having  no 
local  sanctuary,  and  the  ceremonial  service  being 
almost  entirely  abandoned  ;  Providence  thus  stamp 
ing  Jewish  unbelief  as  not  only  wicked  but  absurd, 
by  making  the  continuance  of  the  temporary  sys 
tem  practically  impossible. 

§  385.  It  was  not  an  exchange  of  ceremonial  for 
spiritual  worship,  since  this  existed  before,  and  the 
Jews  themselves  admit  the  continued  obligation  of 
the  former,  and  expect  its  restoration  under  the 
Messiah. 

§  386.  A  third  effect  upon  the  Jews  was  the 
cessation  of  their  persecutions,  the  spirit  of  which 
however  was  perpetuated  in  their  schools  and  con 
troversies,  with  a  rancour  which  has  been  abun 
dantly  repaid  by  Christians. 

§  387.  The  primary  effect  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  on  the  Christian  Church  was  to  put  an 
end  to  the  Judaic  controversy,  by  rendering  the 
observance  of  the  Jewish  law  impossible. 

§  388.  Some  Jewish  Christians  still  adhered  to 
it,  with  more  or  less  tenacity,  and  thus  gave  rise  to 


282  ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOEY. 

Jewish-Christian  sects,  the  first  of  which  we  have 
any  information. 

§  389.  These  were  distinguished  from  the  body 
of  Christians  by  their  observance  of  the  law,  and 
from  the  Jews  by  owning  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus. 

§  390.  They  differed  among  themselves  as  to  the 
necessity  of  the  law,  the  person  of  Christ,  and  the 
authority  of  Paul. 

§  391.  Some  denied  the  absolute  necessity  of  the 
law ;  some  affirmed  it  only  of  Jewish  converts  ; 
while  others  made  it  absolute  and  universal. 

§  392.  Some  regarded  Christ  as  a  mere  man, 
others  as  something  more,  preternaturally  born,  and 
endowed  with  extraordinary  gifts ;  others  as  a  di 
vine  person. 

§  393.  Some  rejected  Paul  as  an  apostate,  others 
owned  him  as  an  apostle. 

§  394.  Our  information  as  to  these  Jewish  Chris 
tians  is  derrived  from  Justin.  Martyr,  Irena3us,  Ter- 
tullian,  Origen,  Epiphanius,  and  Jerome  ;  but  it  is 
very  fragmentary  and  obscure. 

§  395.  It  is  common  to  assume  two  sects,  differ 
ing  in  the  intensity  of  their  Judaic  prejudices,  the 
]N~asareans  and  Ebionites. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    1IISTOBY.  283 

§  39G.  The  ]N"asareans  or  R~azarenes,  a  name  ori 
ginally  given  to  all  followers  of  Christ  (Acts  24,  6), 
were  the  less  Jewish  class,  who  held  the  lowest  views 
as  to  the  law,  and  the  highest  as  to  Christ  and  Paul. 

§  397.  The  name  of  Ebionite  is  derived  by  Ter- 
tullian  from  a  man  named  Ebion,  a  very  common 
ancient  practice  when  the  real  derivation  was  un 
known  ;  but  by  Origen  more  correctly  from  the 
Hebrew  'j'rhx  poor ;  whether  assumed  by  them 
selves  as  being  "  poor  in  spirit,"  or  the  Lord's 
Poor  (like  the  Paupercs  of  the  Middle  Ages)  ;  or 
given  in  contempt  by  others,  as  belonging  to  the 
lower  orders,  or  perhaps  with  reference  to  the  pov 
erty  of  the  Mother  Church,  which  some  ascribe  to 
the  community  of  goods. 

§  398.  The  Ebionites  were  the  more  Jewish  class, 
who  held  the  lowest  views  of  Christ  and  Paul,  and 
insisted  on  the  observance  of  the  law  as  necessary 
to  salvation. 

§  399.  When  they  arose  is  not  positively  known, 
perhaps  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem — they  were  still  in  existence  in  the  second 
century — perhaps  much  longer,  and  perhaps  were 
merged  in  other  sects  (e.  g.  the  Elcesaites). 

§  400.  The  gospel  of  the  Kasarcans  and  Ebion- 


281-  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY. 

ites  is  mentioned  by  the  Fathers,  but  whether  as  a 
creed  or  as  a  book  is  uncertain.  Some  identify  it 
with  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  and  others  with  the 
original  of  Matthew ;  which  leads  us  to  another  topic. 

§  401.  Second  connecting  link — Definition  of 
Ecclesiastical  History  (§§  32,  33). — Terminus  a  quo 
— close  of  history  in  Canon.  Hence  the  question — 
When  was  the  Canon  closed  ?  Details  belong  to 
Introduction — or  to  "New  Testament  History- — but 
outlines  to  beginning  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

§  402.  Objective  close  of  Canon — when  last 
book  written — reign  of  Domitian — -near  the  end  of 
the  first  century. — Subjective  close  of  the  Canon — 
when  the  question  was  finally  determined  in  and  by 
the  Church. 

§  403.  Eusebian  classification — A.  Homologu- 
mena — 4  Gospels — Acts — 13  Epistles  of  Paul — 1  of 
Peter — 1  of  John.  B.  Antilegomena — (a)  Hebrews 
(but  only  as  to  authors).  (1)  Apocalypse — first 
owned — then  disowned  by  rationalists  and  anti- 
chiliasts — then  re-owned,  (c)  James  (considered  by 
some  antipauline) — 2d  Peter— 2d  and  3d  John — • 
Jude — all  short,  and  little  quotable  matter.  C. 
Kotha — wholly  apocryphal  and  spurious. 

§  404.  Doubts  gradually  cleared  up — Church 


ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY.  285 

became  unanimous  —  not  by  authority  of  councils 
—  these  as  yet  only  local  —  and  mere  witnesses  —  not 
judges  —  special  Council  of  Laodicea  (A.  D.  360)  — 
and  Council  of  Hippo  (393)—  our  present  Canon, 
established  by  the  3d  Council  at  Carthage  (397). 


§  405.  !Not  a  mere  passive  acquiescence  —  or  ran 
dom  choice  —  modern  German  fallacy  —  criticism 
unknown  to  the  ancient  Church  —  one  of  its  most 
important  functions  —  to  separate  the  Canon  from  the 
mass  of  competitors  —  the  vfoa  of  Eusebius  (§  403). 

§  406.  These  of  early  origin  —  even  Luke  alludes 
to  previous  unauthorized  attempts  to  write  the  Life 
of  Christ  —  though  not  necessarily  false  —  yet  such 
would  naturally  spring  up  with  the  true.  But 

§  40  T.  Apocryphal  literature  flourished  chiefly 
in  the  second  century  —  much  of  it  now  lost  —  but 
enough  left  to  show  its  character  and  origin  —  which 
was  chiefly  heretical  —  a  rank  growth  from  the  soil 
of  error  —  sp.  Jewish-Christian  sects  and  gnostics  — 
Epiphanius  speaks  of  "  thousands  "  of  gnostic  apoc 
rypha  —  Irenoeus  (more  judicious,  moderate,  and  an 
cient)  of  an  "  inenarrabilis  multitude  apocrypho- 
rum  et  perperum  Scripturarum,"  among  the  Valen- 
tinians  alone. 

§  408.  Some  not  heretical  —  only  pious  frauds  — 


286  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

vaticinia  post  eveiitnm — or  intended  to  fill  chasms 
in  Canonical  books — now  impossible — but  then  fa 
cilitated  by  unsettled  Canon. 

§  409.  Some  claimed  a  place  in  Old  Testament 
—some  in  New  Testament  Canon — Apocryphal 
Gospels — Acts — Epistles — Apocalypses — Principal 
collective  editors — Fabricius — Thilo — Tischend orf. 

§  410.  Classification  of  Apocryphal  Gospels — I. 
Those  claiming  to  be  complete  histories  of  Christ, 
e.  g.  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews — Peter — the  Egyptians 
— Marcion — All  probably  heretical  corruptions  of 
the  4  canonical  gospels.  All  now  lost. 

§  411.  II.  Supplementary  Gospels— (1.)  Of  the 
infancy  of  Christ,  e.  g.  (a)  Protevangelium  Jacobi 
Minoris — early  history  of  Virgin — birth  of  Christ — 
comparatively  simple  and  without  exaggeration — 
Greek  like  that  of  the  New  Testament — Date  very 
early — read  at  the  festivals  of  Mary  in  the  Eastern 
Church. 

§  412.  (2.)  Evangelium  Nativitatis  Marice — same 
general  character — Latin  preface  by  two  bishops 
represents  Matthew  as  the  author — and  Jerome  as 
the  translator.  Collection  of  very  old  aprocryphal 
traditions. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOEY.  287 

§  413.  3.  Gospel  of  Joachim  and  Anna — paren 
tage  and  birth  of  Virgin — infancy  of  Christ — flight  to 
Egypt — infant  miracles — Latin — purports  to  be  by 
James.  This  also  a  collection  of  still  older  legends. 

§  414.  4.  Gospel  of  Joseph  the  carpenter — Ara 
bic  translated  from  the  Coptic — Life  and  death  of 
Joseph — Moralizing — probably  not  older  than  the 
fourth  century. 

§  415.  5.  Gospel  of  Christ's  infancy — Arabic 
translation  from  Syriac — full  of  absurd  miracles. 
6.  Gospel  of  Thomas — Life  of  Christ  from  fifth  to 
twelfth  year — still  more  extravagant  and  silly. 

§  416.  I.  Supplementary  accounts  of  his  Passion, 
e.  g.  (1.)  Gospel  of  Nicodemus — written  in  Greek — 
formal  record  of  trial  before  Pilate — and  resurrec 
tion  of  two  sons  of  Simeon — dated  in  reign  of  The- 
odosius — first  part  purports  to  be  derived  from  He 
brew  work  of  !Nicodemus — second  part  from  older 
apocrypha — First  mentioned  in  13th  century. 

§  417.  (2.)  Acts  of  Pilate — (a)  such  a  book  men 
tioned  by  Justin  Martyr — Tertullian — Eusebius — 
Epiphanius — Pilate's  report  concerning  Christ  to 
Tiberius  ;  with  Tiberius's  proposition  to  the  Senate 
and  letter  to  his  mother — (&)  Under  Maximin — a 


288  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

heathen  forgery — same  title — blashpemous  calum 
nies  of  Christ — read  in  schools  by  order  of  empe 
ror — (c)  A  third  book — same  title — still  extant — 
much  later — Latin  report  of  Pilate  to  Tiberius — 
with  account  of  Pilate's  punishment — also  Epistle 
of  Lentulus  to  Senate — with  minute  description 
of  Christ's  person — first  mentioned  in  the  Middle 
Ages. 

§  4-18.  II.  Apocryphal  acts — mostly  of  gnostic 
origin — numerous  in  third  and  fourth  centuries — 
13  in  Tischendorfs  collection — chiefly  of  the  third 
century — some  re-written  with  modification  of  gnos 
ticism — all  worthless — latest  and  largest — Historia 
Certaminis  Apostolorum — purports  to  be  written  in 
Hebrew  by  Abdias,  disciple  of  the  Apostles  and 
first  Bishop  of  Babylon — Greek  by  Eutropius — and 
Latin  by  Julius  Africanus — really  not  older  than 
ninth  century — found  in  the  16th  century — rejected 
by  Paul  IV. — Baronius,  Bellarmin,  and  Tillemont. 

§  419.  III.  Apocryphal  Epistles— (a)  Christ  and 
Abgarus — King  of  Edessa — preserved  in  archives — 
seen  there  by  Eusebius — request  to  be  healed — • 
promise  to  send  disciple — (I)  Paul  to  the  Laodi- 
ceans  (Col.  4,  16), — only  in  Latin — a  mere  cento  of 
scriptural  phrases — (c)  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  (1 
Cor.  5,  9),  with  their  answer,  both  extant  in  Arme- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  289 

nian — (d)  Paul  to  Seneca — old  tradition  of  corres 
pondence  (Augustine  and  Jerome) — 13  short  letters 
extant — (e)  letter  of  Ignatius  to  Virgin  Mary — ask 
ing  information  about  Christ — and  her  answer  re 
ferring  him  to  John — first  mentioned  by  Bernard  in 
12th  century — (f)  letters  of  the  Virgin  to  the  people 
of  Messina,  Florence,  &c. 

§420.  IV.  Apocryphal  Apocalypses.  (1.)  Of  Pe 
ter  (Clem.  Alex.)  signs  of  judgment — (2.)  Ascension 
of  Paul  (2  Cor.  12,)  Aug.  "  fabulis  plena  stultis- 
sima  prcesumtione."  Epiphanius  says  Cainite  (3.) 
Thomas — (4.)  Stephen — (5.)  another  of  John — all 
wretched  copies  of  canonical  Apocalypse. 

§  421.  V.  Apocryphal  prophecies.  (1.)  Old  Tes 
tament,  (a)  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs — 
Imitation  of  Gen.  49 — Mysteries  of  the  other 
world — Prophecies  of  Christ — rejection  of  Jews — 
fine  style — mentioned  by  Origen — (Z>)  Apocalypse 
of  Moses — only  two  quotations  in  Syncellus — rejects 
circumcision — (c)  Ascension  of  Isaiah — Imitations 
of  Paul's  conversation  with  Angel — Messianic  Pro 
phecies — Quoted  by  Origen,  Epiphanius — Jerome — 
Greek  lost — Latin  version  extant  at  Venice — Ethi- 
opic  at  Oxford. 

§  422.  (2.)   Heathen  prophecies — (a)   Sibylline 
13 


290  ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY. 

books — Etymology  of  name  (St>b$  [Doric  for 
J3oiAry) — Varro  quoted  by  Lactantius — Ten  Sibyls 
— Chief  at  Cuma — Tarquin — 3  books — burnt  in 
Capitol — under  Marius  and  Sylla  (B.  C.  183) — re 
placed  by  collection — burnt  again  under  Nero  (A.  D. 
G4) — Sibylline  books  now  extant — Homeric  verse 
— by  daughter-in-law  of  Noah — evidently  by  Chris 
tians — prophecies  of  Christ  and  Antichrist — Rome 
— Church — end  of  world — eruption  of  Vesuvius 
(A.  D.  79) — sign  of  judgment — Nero's  reappearance 
— Something  later — gradual  collection — second  and 
third  centuries — cited  by  Apologists — hence  called 
Sibyllists — Celsus  charged  with  forging — Disap 
peared  with  Paganism  in  fourth  century — reap 
peared  in  16th — only  eight  known  till  Mai  discov 
ered  xi.-xiv.— best  edition  Alexandre's  (1842) — (5) 
Hystaspes  (Gushtasp)  old  Persian  King — Christian 
prophecies — quoted  by  Justin  Martyr  and  Clem. 
Alex. — (c)  Hermes  Trismegistus — Egyptian  sage. 

§  423.  IV.  Disciplinary  Pseud epigrapha — in 
tended  to  give  apostolical  authority  to  ecclesiastical 
usages  of  third  and  fourth  centuries — (1.)  Apostoli 
cal  polity  or  discipline — in  Greek,  third  century — 
Acts  of  Apostolical  Council — All  exhort  and  legis 
late — Cephas  besides  Peter — also  Martha  and  Mary 
— Part  as  old  as  beginning  of  second  century  ? 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  291 

§  424.  (2.)  Apostolical  Constitutions — eight  books 
— duties  of  laity  and  clergy — worship — widows  and 
deaconesses — treatment  of  poor — martyrs — festi 
vals — heresies — Mosaic  law — liturgy — charismata 
— ordinations — tythes — six  books  form  one  whole — 
called  "  Apostolic  doctrine  "  in  old  versions — and 
in  book  itself — not  ultra  hierarchical — seventh  and 
eighth  each  complete  in  itself — internal  evidence  of 
Syrian  origin — last  of  third  century — or  beginning 
of  fourth — Earlier  than  Council  of  Nice — quoted 
by  Eusebius  and  Athanasius  as  "  Doctrine  of  Apos 
tles  " — Cited  as  authority  by  Epiphanius — rejected 
by  Concilium  Quinisextum  (692)  as  corrupted — but 
received  in  Eastern  Church — unknown  in  West  till 
16th  century — rejected  by  Baronius  and  Daille — 
now  generally  given  up. 

§  425.  (3.)  Apostolical  Canons — Appendix  to 
Constitutions  (§  424),  but  also  in  separate  form — 
Greek — Syriac — Ethiopia  — Arabic — Longer  form 
85  canons — shorter  50 — peremptory  tone — apostoli 
cal  authority — not  doctrinal  but  disciplinary — made 
known  in  West  by  Dionysius  Exiguus  (end  of  fifth 
century) — rejected  as  apocryphal  by  Pope  Horaris- 
das — gradually  current — recognized  by  Pseudo  Isi 
dore  in  East — imposed  by  Concilium  Quinisextum. 

§  426.  All   this   illustrates   history  of  canon — 


292  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

shows  critical  process — New  Testament  homogene 
ous — and  superior — not  only  to  apocrypha  and 
pseudepigrapha — but  to 

§  427.  Apostolical  Fathers — third  connecting 
link — earliest  uninspired  Christian  writers — contem 
poraries  and  disciples  of  Apostles  ;  Mark  and  Luke 
excluded  as  inspired. 

§  428.  Simplicity  and  piety — without  inspira 
tion — divine  or  human — Hence  genuineness  of  ex 
tant  writings  questioned — because  early  disposition 
to  claim  apostolical  origin  for  later  usages  and  doc 
trines  (§  423) — no  canon  to  prevent  such  frauds — 
not  affecting  rule  of  faith. 

§  429.  But  on  the  other  hand — modern  disposi 
tion  to  exaggerate  critical  misgivings — Too  much 
expected  from  Apostolical  Fathers — whereas  great 
gulf — immense  descent  from  Apostles  to  Apostolical 
Fathers. 

§  430.  Guericke  says  this  surprising  only  to  Pa 
pists,  who  think  successors  no  less  inspired  than 
Apostles,  or  to  Rationalists,  who  think  Apostles  no 
more  inspired  than  successors. 

§  431.  Providential  purpose  of  this  inequality — 
to  draw  a  broad  line  between  the  canon  and  all 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  293 

other  writings.  If  Origen,  Athanasius,  or  Augnstin 
had  immediately  succeeded  the  Apostles — they 
might  have  rivalled  them — but  this  prevented  by  a 
pause — during  which  the  life  of  the  Church  was 
rather  practical  than  intellectual. 

§  432.  Collective  edition  of  Cotelerius — recent 
one  of  Hefele.  Translation  by  Archbishop  Wake  ; 
number  usually  reckoned  seven — three  disciples  of 
Paul — three  of  John — and  one  anonymous — Paul 
as  Apostle  of  Gentiles — John  as  last  survivor. 

§  433.  I.  School  of  Paul — all  supposed  to  be 
named  in  his  epistles. — 1.  Clemens  Romanus  (Phil. 
4.  3) — early  bishop — and  martyr  (Rufinus) — (^Epis 
tle  to  Corinthians — in  Greek — exhortation  to  union 
and  humility — read  in  churches — then  lost  sight  of 
-1628— Codex  Alexandrinus— with  LXX.  and  New 
Testament — presented  by  Cyril  Lucaris  to  Charles 
I. — (6)  Same  manuscript,  fragment  of  second  epistle 
to  Corinthians — but  no  epistle — and  probably  not 
by  Clement. — (c)  Pseudepigrapha — (d)  Apostolical 
Constitutions  and  Canons,  (§§  424,  425). — (e)  Cle 
mentina  and  Recognitions. — (f)  Some  pseudode- 
cretals. 

§  434.  (2.)  Barnabas — named  in  Galatians  and 
Acts — one  epistle  extant — known  to  Clement  of 


294:  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

Alexandria — lost  since  ninth  century — found  in  17th 
— first  four  and  a  half  chapters  only  in  old  Latin  ver 
sion — allegorizes  Old  Testament — later  than  Fall  of 
Jerusalem — depreciates  ceremonial  law — but  pious 
— and  some  excellent  ideas — reckoned  apocryphal  by 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (i.  e.  not  inspired  or  canoni 
cal) — spurious  by  Meander — genuine  by  Gieseler. 

§435.  (3.)  Hennas  (Rom.  1C,  14)  "the  Shep 
herd  "  complete  only  in  old  Latin  version — Angel  as 
Shepherd  instructs  Hennas — three  books  :  I.  Four 
visions  (church  as  woman) ;  -f-  II.  Twelve  mandates 
(of  Angel  to  Hernias) ;  -f  HI.  Ten  similitudes — Ab 
struse  and  mystical — but  read  in  churches — Origen 
and  Irenseus  call  it  inspired — Muratori  Fragment 
(Caius  ? )  ascribes  to  another  Hernias — brother  of 
Pius,  bishop  of  Kome  (c.  A.  D.  150). 

§  436.  II.  School  of  John — belonging  to  his  later 
ministry— age  not  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures.: — (1.) 
Ignatius— bishop  of  Antioch — martyred  under  Tra 
jan  (§  490) — 15  epistles  extant,  8  acknowledged  to 
be  spurious  (5  Greek  -f  3  Latin)—  7  in  Greek- 
written  on  way  to  Rome — 1  to  Polycarp — 5  to 
churches  in  Asia  Minor  and  1  to  church  in  Rome — 
warning  against  heresies  and  discord — exhortations 
to  rally  round  the  bishops  as  representatives  of 
Christ— Hence  appealed  to  in  episcopal  controversy 
— One  question  as  to  long  and  short  recension. 


ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY.  295 

whether  long  interpolated — or  short  curtailed. 
Third  recension — discovered  by  Tatham  (1838), 
edited  by  Cureton — glorified  by  Bunscn — refuted 
by  Baur — only  three  epistles — in  Syriac — less  pre- 
latical — but  also  less  trinitarian — meagre  garbling 
of  the  seven — Anglicans  hold  to  long  form — Ger 
mans  to  short — Inconclusive  as  to  prelacy — (a)  be 
cause  bishop  may  mean  presbyter — (b)  if  diocesan, 
a  new  invention. 

§  437.  (2.)  Polycarp — disciple  of  John — bishop 
of  Smyrna — martyr  under  Marcus  Aurelius  (A.  D. 
168,  §  494). — Epistles  to  churches  under  persecution 
— only  one  preserved — to  the  Philippians — Greek 
only  in  fragments — entire  only  in  old  Latin  version 
— many  citations  from  New  Testament — important 
witness  as  to  Canon. 

§  438.  (3.)  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phry- 
gia — disciple  of  John  (Ircnseus) — Martyr  under 
Marcus  Aurelius  (?) — collector  of  Christ's  AOFIA 
—credulous  and  injudicious  (eryiu/epo?  vow,  Eus.)  but 
great  influence — promoted  Chiliasm — Only  meagre 
fragments — preserved  by  Irenseus  and  Eusebius. 

§  439.  III.  Anonymous — Epistle  to  Diognetus — 
Description  or  Defence  of  Christianity — addressed 
to  a  heathen — Long  ascribed  to  Justin  Martyr — but 


296  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

very  unlike— older — professed  disciple  of  Apostles — 
more  elegant — laxer  as  to  Judaism — heathen  gods 
nullities,  not  demons — First  disproved  by  Tillemont 
— reaffirmed  by  Otto — (Excellent  Patristic  exercise 
— Hefele's  edition  (§  432)— Biblical  Kepertory,  Jan. 
1853. 

§  440.  Early  propagation  of  Christianity — an 
other  connecting  link  with  apostolical  times — abso 
lute  and  relative  historical  importance.  New  Testa 
ment,  chiefly  Peter  and  Paul. 

§  441.  Remarkable  dearth  of  information — almost 
a  blank — perhaps  to  be  explained  by  rapid  and  sim 
ultaneous  movement— if  slower  and  successive, 
might  be  traced  more  easily. 

§  442.  Edessa — Christian  king — Abgarus  (170) — 
Arabia — India — Bartholomew  ? — Thomas  ? — Pautse- 
nus — Origen — Gaul  from  Asia  Minor — Britain  from 
the  same  ? — or  from  Home  ? — Eleutherus  and  Lucius 
— Claims  of  various  nations  mostly  fabulous. 

§  443.  Mode  of  propagation — as  at  first — by  es 
tablishing  radiating  centres — Rome  the  last  in  the 
New  Testament — then  Alexandria  and  Carthage. 

§  444.  Twofold  conflict  of  the  Church  in  the  first 
centuries  (§  257) — Intellectual  and  physical — Intel- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY.  297 

lectual  conflict— (1)  with  avowed  enemies — (2)  with 
disguised  enemies — A.  Judaism  (§  301). 

§  445.  B.  Heathenism — (a)  its  origin — segrega 
tion  of  the  chosen  people — the  rest  left  to  walk  in 
their  own  ways — (Z>)  its  tendencies  to  atheism  and 
pantheism — to  superstition — to  materialism — to  na 
ture-worship — to  despotism. 

§  44:6.  Twofold  preparation  for  Christianity,  (1) 
among  the  Jews — salvation  for  men — (2)  among  the 
gentiles — men  for  salvation  ;  (a)  negative — convince 
of  need — and  worthlessness  of  human  contrivances — 
(5)  positive— with  actual  cultivation — preparation  of 
language — as  the  garb  of  truth — Greek — most  per 
fect  language — and  when  Christ  came — the  most 
prevalent — and  therefore  proper  vehicle  of  oecumen 
ical  revelation. 

§  447.  State  of  heathenism  at  the  advent — 
effete — sense  of  want  never  greater — means  of  satis 
fying  it  never  less. 

§  448.  Barbarous  religions,  i.  e.  neither  Greek 
nor  Roman — cornparativly  little  known — Eastern 
theosophi  es — Buddhism — Parsism — western  Druid- 
ism — spiritual  tyranny — power  destroyed  in  first 
century.  Other  barbarous  religions,  military  or 

savage. 

13* 


298  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

§  449.  Greek  and  Eoman  Heathenism — origi 
nally  not  the  same — the  Horn  an  sterner  and  purer 
— but  assimilated  after  fall  of  Carthage  and  Corinth 
— increase  of  wealth  and  luxury — influence  of  Greek 
teachers — question  as  to  Greek  art — whether  cor 
rupting  or  redeeming  (Tholuck  and  Jacobs). 

§  450.  Sense  of  spiritual  want  unsatisfied — 
mania  for  new  religions — fostered  by  new  conquests 
—rites  and  mysteries  imported  from  Egypt  and  the 
East  — Dea  Syra  — Mithras — Syncretism — highest 
ranks — even  Emperors — Heliogabalus — Alexander 
Severus.  (§§  500,  501). 

§  451.  Relation  of  Philosophy  to  Mythology — 
(1)  Antagonistic — condemned  and  ridiculed  it — (2) 
Compromise — defended  and  explained  it — symbol 
ical  interpretation — (3)  Amalgamation — philosophy 
no  longer  speculation — but  religion — especially 
after  rise  of  Christianity, 

§  452.  The  greatest  schools  of  Greek  Philoso 
phy  extinct  or  metamorphosed,  e.  g.  those  of  Plato 
and  Aristotle  still  survived,  and  prevalent  at  Ad 
vent — those  of  (1)  Epicurus — happiness  the  highest 
good — no  Providence — the  gods  indifferent  to  man's 
conduct  and  condition —  and  (2)  Zeno  (Stoics)  pain 
no  evil — fate — indifferentism — apathy — Iso.  1  suited 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  299 

the    Greeks — !N"o.    2    the    .Romans.      (See    Acts 
17,  18.) 

§  453.  Heathen  view  of  Christianity — at  first 
contemptuous — as  barbarous  fanaticism — or  offshoot 
of  Judaism — then  jealous — when  it  spread  and  be 
came  powerful — as  new  form  of  philosophy — all 
that  was  good  in  it  known  before — only  in  new 
form — But  this  led  necessarily  to 

§  454.  Reform  of  Heathenism — (like  that  of 
Popery  after  the  Reformation) — by  reviving  old 
systems — sp.  that  of  Pythagoras — but  no  longer 
esoteric — popular — Goetes — Magoi — chief  represen 
tative 

§  455.  ApoHonius  of  Tyana — lived  through  the 
first  century — perhaps  an  enthusiast  more  than  an 
impostor — oldest  authorities  speak  of  him  as  a  Goes 
— but  the  next  age  exalted  him  as  an  antichrist — 
religious  teacher  and  thaumaturge — sp.  his  biogra 
pher,  Philostratus — but  effect  transient. 

§  456.  Revival  of  old  Mysteries — Eleusinian — 
Dionysian — Oriental — Egyptian — purer  theology  ? 
— or  mere  freemasonry  ? — Still  a  failure — could  not 
replace  Christianity. 

§  457.  Last  effort — the  Eclectic  Philosophy — its 


300  ECCLESIASTICAL    IIISTOKY. 

principle — take  what  is  good  in  all  systems — not 
only  of  philosophy — but  of  religion — thus  sure  to 
be  better  than  any  one — (a  common  fallacy — excels 
each  only  in  detail — but  has  no  unity  or  substan 
tive  existence ;  illustrate  by  eclectic  building  or 
machine) — Christianity  itself  placed  under  contri 
bution — but  not  its  essentials — then  would  have 
been  Christian,  and  chiefly  in  heretical  corrupted 
form. 

§  458.  Basis  of  course  not  Christian — but  Hea 
then  Philosophy  most  like  it — Platonism — hence 
Neoplatonism — supported  by  whole  strength  of 
Heathenism — in  decline  of  classic  age — Forerun 
ners — Plutarch  (+120) — profound — serious — some 
times  almost  Christian — favourite  ancient  with  un 
learned  readers  now — Apuleius  (c.  170) — Maximus 
Tyrius  (c.  190.) 

§  459.  Proper  founder  of  system — Ammonius 
Saccas  of  Alexandria  (c.  243) — said  to  have  been 
born  and  bred  a  Christian — seduced  into  heathen 
ism  by  study  of  philosophy.  Principal  disciples 
and  successors :  Plotinus — also  an  Egyptian  (c.  270) 
—Porphyry  of  Tyre  (-f-  304)— Jamblichus  of  Chalcis 
(-J-  333) — witnessed  fall  of  Heathenism. 

§  460.  End  of  third  century — universal  among 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  301 

educated  heathen — superseded  other  systems — ne 
cessary  part  of  education — studied  by  many  Chris 
tians — led  to  some  corruptions. 

§  461.  Outline  of  system — two  sets  of  gods— dif 
ferent  spheres — mundane  and  extramundane — de 
mons,  good  and  bad — KOO-JJLOS  vorjros  or  rational  uni 
verse—material  universe  made  by  demiurge — OLTTO\- 
Xot  might  be  satisfied  with  local  and  ancestral  gods 
— ol  cr7rouSatot  should  seek  to  know  and  be  united 
with  o  vovs  or  TO  ev — by  ascesis — contemplation — 
and  theurgy. 

§  462.  Effect  on  Christianity — led  many  to  it — 
others  satisfied  without  it — some  led  to  oppose  it — 
early  tone  of  heathen  writers  towards  Christianity 
—Tacitus — S  ue tonius — Pliny — Marcus  Aurelius — 
offended  by  enthusiasm.  Of  less  note :  Fronto — 
Crescens — Galen. 

§  463.  Lucian — satirist  of  mythology — cynicism 
— and  Christianity — promoted  undesignedly  by 
bearing  witness  to  Christian  fortitude  and  philadel- 
phia. — His  history  of  Peregrinus  Proteus — aimed 
more  at  cynicism  than  at  Christianity — founded  in 
fact — (Peregrinus  Proteus  mentioned  by  A.  Gel- 
lius — Tatian — Athenagoras — Tertullian) — but  cm- 


302  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

bellished  fiction — with  traits  from  Christian  history 
— e.  g.  martyrdom  of  Polycarp. 

§  464.  First  formal  attack  on  Christianity — by 
Celsus — probably  Epicurean,  with  Platonic  mark — 
AAHQH2  AOrOS-oirty  known  from  Origen's 
refutation — some  wit — but  shallow — ignorant  — 
malignant — makes  Christ  an  ordinary  Goes. 

§  465.  Porphyry  (§  459) — nobler  and  abler — 
fifteen  books  (KATA  CHRISHNIAN/2N  LOGOI) 
— only  a  few  fragments  in  Ensebius — sceptical 
criticism — allegorical  interpretation — contradictions 
— Moses  and  Christ — Peter  and  Paul — anachro 
nisms — Daniel.  Forerunner  of  rationalism — also 
wrote  in  defence  of  Heathenism  ("  Philosophy  from 
the  Oracles  ") — large  fragments  in  Ensebius. 

§  466.  Hierocles — governor  of  Bithynia  under 
Diocletian — both  persecutor  and  polemic  writer — 
( AOTOIQIAAAHSEI SIIPO2XPI2  TIANOTS ) 
—best  part  borrowed  from  predecessors — eked  out 
with  calumnious  fables  about  Christ  and  Christians 
—prefers  Apollonius  of  Tyana. 

§  46 T.  These  attacks  called  forth  the  best  Chris 
tian  writers  of  the  age — sp.  under  Antonines — in 
Apologies — or  regular  defences  of  Christianity — 
some  public  or  official — some  popular  or  private. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  303 

Of  both  these  some  are  lost — and  some  still  ex 
tant. 

§  4GS.  Oldest  apologists  no  longer  extant — 
(1)  Quadratus — disciple  of  Apostles  (Irenseus) — 
Bishop  of  Athens  (Eusebius) — reputed  prophet — 
had  seen  men  healed  or  raised  to  life  by  Christ 
— presented  Apology  to  Adrian — lost  since  the 
seventh  century — last  mentioned  by  Photius — (2) 
Ariston  of  Pella — "  Jason  and  Papiscus  " — argu 
ment  from  prophecy — sneered  at  by  Celsus — de 
fended  by  Origen.  ' 

§  469.  (3)  Melito  of  Sardis — witness  to  Canon 
—presented  apology  to  Marcus  Aurelius — praised 
by  Eusebius  and  Jerome — original  lost — Syriac 
version  found  and  published  with  an  English  trans 
lation  in  1855,  by  Cureton.  (4)  Claudius  Apolli- 
naris — bishop  of  Hierapolis — praised  by  Eusebius 
and  Jerome — now  lost.  (5)  Milttades — a  rhetori 
cian — presented  apology  to  Marcus  Aurelius — 
praised  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome — now  lost. 

§  470.  II.  Apologists  still  extant :  (1)  Justin 
Martyr — born  at  Shechem  in  Samaria — heathen 
parentage  and  education — studied  philosophy- 
tried  all  schools — but  unsatisfied — at  last  instructed 
by  an  aged  Christian — retained  his  philosopher's 
mantle — but  travelled  as  a  sort  of  missionary-*- 


304  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

hated  by  the  heathen — put  to  death  at  Rome 
(163-167) — at  the  instance  of  Crescens  the  Cynic 
(§462.)  ' 

§  471.  Two  Apologies  of  Justin — first  and 
longest  to  Antoninus  Pius — second  to  Marcus 
Aurelius — a  third  against  the  Jews  (Dialogue  with 
Trypho)— Against  the  heathen  JTEPI  MONAP- 
XI AS) — refuted  from  their  own  philosophers.  Some 
books  of  doubtful  origin — two  Exhortations  to  the 
Greeks.  Book  against  heresies  now  lost — many 
pseudopigrapha — e.  g.  Epistle  to  Diognetus  (§  439). 

§  472.  Tatian — disciple  of  Justin — author  of 
first  harmony  (Diatessaron)— AOFOSHPOS  IIEL- 
LENAS — treats  Greek  heathenism  with  indiscrim 
inate  contempt.  Afterwards  became  a  Gnostic. 

§  473.  (3.)  Athenagoras — personal  history  un 
known — Presbeia  (intercession)  peri  Christianon — 
clear  and  logical — negative  and  positive  defence — an 
other  work  defends  the  resurrection  against  heathen 
objections. — (4)  Theophilus  ofAntioch — three  books 
to  Antolycus — a  learned  heathen  friend — among 
the  best  apologies — shows  great  knowledge  of  Greek 
literature.  Born  a  heathen — converted  by  reading 
the  Scriptures — author  of  other  exegetical  and  con 
troversial  works — now  lost.  (5)  Hermias — history 


ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY.  305 


unknown—  AIASTPMOS  TflN  EH/2 
$f2N  —  satirical  attack  on  heathenism  —  variously 
described  as  "geistvoll"  (Kurtz)  and  "geistlos" 
(Jacobi).  [Tertullian,  Origen,  Minucius  Felix  ?] 


§  474.  General  character  of  these  Apologies — 
repel  calumnies — atheism,  misanthrophy — Thyes- 
ean  feasts — incest — show  the  true  character  of 
Christianity — and  expose  the  absurdity  and  wick 
edness  of  heathenism — thus  they  dispelled  many 
errors  and  prejudices — and  diffused  much  light — 
both  as  to  Heathenism  and  Christianity. 

§  475.  But  good  end  frequently  promoted  by 
bad  means — e.  g.  (a)  appeal  to  false  authorities- 
Sibylline  books — Hystaspes — Hermes  Trismegistus 
— (5)  identifying  Christianity  with  the  old  Greek 
philosophy — (c)  erroneous  views  of  the  relation  be 
tween  Judaism  and  Christianity — depreciation  of 
the  Ceremonial  law — even  as  a  temporary  institu 
tion — (d)  deficient  views  of  spiritual  Christianity — 
too  superficial  and  external. 

§  476.  Other  side  of  great  twofold  conflict 
(§  444).  Persecution — coextensive  with  first  three 
centuries. — Providential  purpose  or  final  cause — 
1.  To  sift  the  Church  and  exclude  hypocritical  pro 
fessors.  2.  To  harden  and  fortify  it  by  endurance. 


306  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

Peculiarly  necessary  in  the  first  age,  as  the  forming 
period  of  the  Church. 

§  477.  Primary  source  of  Persecution — the  Jews 
— "begins  in  New  Testament — Persecution  of  Christ 
by  the  Pharisees — as  the  dominant  party — which 
he  especially  denounced — and  of  the  Apostles  by 
the  Sadducees — because  they  preached  the  resur 
rection. 

§  478.  The  first  martyr,  Stephen — the  second, 
James,  the  son  of  Zebedee — both  led  to  the  diffu 
sion  of  the  gospel — Persecution  by  Saul  and  of 
Paul  (active  and  passive) — Jewish  hatred  embit 
tered  by  the  death  of  Christ — the  Zealots. 

§  479.  First  check  to  Jewish  persecution — the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  (§  387).  Re 
newed  under  Bar  Cochba  (or  Bar  Coziba) — 
aided  by  Rabbi  Akiba — insurrection — three  years 
war — Christians  persecuted  by  both  parties — put 
down  by  Julius  Severus  —  Palestine  wasted  — 
Jerusalem  razed — Eoman  colony — ^Elia  Capitolina 
—temple  of  Yenus — Jews  banished  for  ages  (Tert. 
and  Jerome) — Circumcision  and  Sabbath  forbidden 
— end  of  Jewish  persecution. 

§  480.  Secondary  source  of  Persecution — Hea 
thenism — necessary  hostility  to  exclusive  religion — 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  307 

law  of  Ten  Tables — only  one  religio  licita — i.  e. 
in  Kome  and  Italy — tolerated  religion  of  foreign 
conquests. 

§  481.  Less  tolerant  to  Judaism — "because  ex 
clusive — still  less  to  Christianity — because  more 
aggressive  and  successful — and  without  prestige 
of  nationality  and  antiquity — (compare  Turkish  and 
Prussian  toleration). 

§  482.  Popular  prejudice  against  the  Chrstians 
— (a)  as  Atheists — because  no  images  or  temples — 
(5)  as  licentious — on  account  of  secret  and  noctur 
nal  meetings — Lord's  Supper  a  Thyestean  feast ! — 
(c)  as  unpatriotic — because  declined  civil  and  mili 
tary  service — not  as  unlawful  per  se — but  as  lead 
ing  to  idolatry — (d)  as  misanthropical — because  ab 
stained  from  public  amusements — and  thought  more 
of  the  future  than  the  present. 

§  483.  Promoted  by  mutual  abuse  of  church 
and  sects — and  influence  of  Priests — and  other  in 
terested  parties — fomenting  popular  illusions — as 
to  public  calamities — anger  of  gods  for  desecration 
— Tertullian  :  "  Deus  non  pluit,  due  ad  Christ  i- 
anos!" — "  Si  Tiberis  ascendit  in  msenia,  si  Nilus 
non  ascendit  in  arva — si  coelum  stetit — si  terra 


308  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

mo  vet — si  fames,  si  lues,  statim,  Cliristianos  ad  le- 
onem !  " 

§  484.  Common  to  government  and  people — 
fear  of  political  ascendancy — chiliastic  dreams — fall 
of  empire — or  real  doctrine  of  Messiah's  kingdom 
— submissive  citizens  but  dangerous. 

§  485.  Guericke's  classification  of  Persecutions 

(1)  governmental — (2)    popular — (3)    individual — 
Kurtz's :    (1)    Chronological   division   to   Trajan — 

(2)  to  Marcus  Aurelius — (3)  to  Philip  the  Arabian 
— (4)  under  Decius — (5)  under  Diocletian. 

§  486.  Persecutions  of  first  century — Early  Em 
perors — Tiberius — afraid  to  persecute — wicked  but 
superstitious — conscience-stricken — traditional  pro 
position  to  deify  Christ  (Tertullian)  —  Claudius 
expelled  Jews  (Acts  xviii.) — and  Christians  with 
them  ? — (Quote  Suetonius.) — As  yet  not  distin 
guished  from  the  Jews. 

§  487.  First  real  persecution — under  Nero — con 
flagration — wanton  cruelty — false  accusation — re 
lated  by  Tacitus  and  Suetonius — ("  per  flagitia  in- 
visos  "  ....  "  exitiabilis  superstitio  "...."  odio 
humani  generis  convicti.") — General  or  local — for 
mer  asserted  first  by  Orosius  (§  88).  Spanish  in 
scription  to  Nero. — First  decree  against  Christian- 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY'.  309 

ity  ?     (Tertullian  says,  other  Neronic  laws  repealed). 
Perhaps  meant  to  be  general — but  not  executed. 

§  488.  Successors  of  !N"ero  spared  the  church— 
until  Domitian — political  jealousy — Flavius  Cle 
mens — Flavia  Domitilla  banished  to  Pontia — John 
to  Patmos — boiling  oil  (Tertullian) — date  of  Apoc 
alypse — two  of  Christ's  kinsmen — heirs  of  David 
(Hegesippus  ap.  Eusebius)  —  Temporary  respite 
under  Nerva. 

§  489.  -New  era  in  history  of  Persecution — reign 
of  Trajan — not  from  personal  hostility — but  policy 
— revived  laws  against  secret  societies — (Blunt  says 
Zero's  edict  against  Christianity).  Correspond 
ence  with  Pliny — no  general  rule — no  inquisition 
— no  anonymous  charges — but  if  obstinate,  to  die 
— (genuineness  of  correspondence  denied  by  Gib 
bon  and  Semler — still  disputed — but  commonly 
received). — First  regular  law  of  persecution  (Blunt 
says  Nero's) — but  no  heathen  bigotry  or  fanatical 
zeal  ("  pessimi  exempli  nee  nostri  seculi.") — Old 
Roman  spirit — indifferent  till  conflict  with  civil  au 
thority — then  inflexibly  severe. 

§  490.  Extent  of  Persecution — certainly  to  Pal 
estine  and  Syria — Symeon,  son  of  Clop  as — nephew 
of  Joseph  (Hegesippus) — Bishop  of  Jerusalem — ar- 


310  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY. 

raigned — as  Christian  and  Davidite — scourged — 
crucified  (A.  D.  107). — Antiocli — Ignatius — au 
dience  of  Emperor — sent  in  chains  to  Home — 
(wrote  seven  epistles  on  the  way.  §  436) — exposed 
in  Coliseum  to  wild  beasts— (A.  D.  107-116.) 

§  491.  Hadrian — zealous  heathen — but  forbade 
extra-judicial  persecution — and  tumultuary  accu 
sation — tradition  of  fourth  century — built  first 
churches — knew  little  of  Christianity — cared  less — 
profaned  Jerusalem — report  from  Serenius  Grania- 
nus,  Proconsul  of  Asia  Minor — instructions  to  his 
successor,  Minucius  Fundanus. 

§  492.  Antoninus  Pius — mild  and  benevolent — 
tried  to  quell  persecution  [Melito] — but  people  ex 
cited  by  calamities — rescript  ad  commune  Asise — 
preserved  by  Eusebius — but  now  thought  spu 
rious. 

§  493.  Thus  far  political — not  personal  hostility 
— till  Marcus  Aurelius — most  pious  of  heathen — 
yet  hated  Christianity — stoical  contempt  of  its  en 
thusiasm  and  condescension  (§  462) — irrational  and 
obstinate  fanaticism — resolved  to  suppress  it — not 
merely  passive  but  active — espionage  and  torture 
— Extant  edict — genuine  (Neander)  ? — or  spurious 


ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTOKY.  311 

(Gieseler)? — Law  of  Marcus  Aurelius  in  Pandects 
— punishing  "  religious  superstition  "  with  deporta 
tion. 

§  494.  Persecution  general  but  not  uniform — at 
Rome — Justin  (165-168) — instigated  by  Crescens 
(§§  462,  470.)— Worst  in  Asia  Minor  and  Gaul- 
contemporary  accounts  (§  80) — Smyrna — Polycarp 
— >aet.  86  (§  442) — disciple  of  John — Lyons  and 
Yienne — Pothinus  aet.  90 — Ponticus  aet.  15 — slave 
Blandina — ashes  in  Rhone. 

§  495.  Old  tradition  of  Legio  Fulminea  (or  Ful- 
minatrix) — A.  D.  174. — War  with  Quadi  and  Mar- 
comanni — drought — storm — prayers  of  Christians — 
end  of  persecution  (Claudius  Apollinaris  and  Ter- 
tullian) — but  anachronism — and  heathen  version — 
Jupiter  Pluvius — Egyptian  sorcerer. 

§  496.  Successors  of  Marcus  personally  indiffer 
ent — but  persecuting  laws  unrepealed — at  mercy  of 
local  governors — Commodus — Marcia — local  perse 
cutions — Asia  Minor — Arrius  Pontinus  Proconsul 
(Tertullian) — Did  the  Emperor  himself  turn  ? 

§  497.  Septimius  Severus — healed  by  Proculus, 
a  Christian  slave — anointed  (James  5,  14) — hence 
favoured  Christianity  at  first  (Tertullian) — but  af 
terwards  turned — cause  unknown — Montanistic  ex- 


312  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOEY. 

travagance  and  prophecies  of  Christ's  personal 
reign  ?  Edict  forbidding  gentiles,  Judseos,  or 
Cliristianos  fieri  (A.  D.  203). 

§  498.  Persecution  raged  in  Egypt  and  North 
west  Africa — Alexandria — Leonidas — father  of  Ori- 
gen  beheaded — Potamiena  and  her  mother  Marcella 
— Saturnus  ("  know  me  at  the  judgment  ") — Per- 
petua  of  Carthage — slave  Felicitas — contemporary 
record — with  extracts  from  Jail  Journal. 

§  499.  Caracalla — misanthropic  indifference — 
but  persecution  still  continued — new  practice  of 
purchasing  exemption — disapproved  by  earnest 
Christians.  (Tertullian  de  Euga  in  Persecutione.) 

§  500.  Syncretistic  mania  (§  450).  Heliogaba- 
lus  priest  of  sun — wished  to  unite  all  religions  in 
one  ritual  and  temple — hence  tolerated  all — Chris 
tianity  included — (compare  James  II.) 

§  501.  Alexander  Severus  (222) — more  rational 
eclecticism — (anecdote — any  religion  better  than  a 
tavern) — appreciated  spiritual  worship — bust  of 
Christ  in  his  Lararium — with  those  of  Abraham, 
Orpheus,  and  Apollonius — recognized  church  at 
Rome  as  legal  corporation — influenced  by  his 
mother,  Julia  Mammsea — and  she  by  Origen — 
(Orosius  says  she  was  a  Christian — Eusebius  says, 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  313 

pious,  if  ever  a  woman  was)— golden  rule  on 
wall  of  palace — lience  reputed  Jew  or  Christian — 
nicknamed  Arcliienus  and  Archisynagogus. 

§  502.  Maximin  the  Thracian  (235) — murdered 
and  succeeded  Alexander — liated  Christians  for  his 
sake — persecuted  chief  men — as  his  own  opponents 
— earthquakes  excited  popular  rage — reign  too 
short  to  do  much  harm. 

§  503.  Gordian  (244)— left  the  Christians  un 
molested — Philip  the  Arabian — so  tolerant — after- 
Wards  said  to  be  a  Christian — and  called  first  Chris 
tian  emperor  by  Jerome — and  to  have  been  discip 
lined  by  a  bishop.  (Eusebius  as  a  tradition — Jerome 
as  a  fact.)  lie  and  Queen  (Severa)  also  friends  of 
Origen  (§  501.) — Origen  against  Celsus  (§  464)  says 
persecution  at  an  end — but  to  be  renewed. 

§  504.  Pauses  between  persecutions — intervals 
of  rest  and  growth — increase  of  strength  and  num 
bers — heightened  expectations  of  ascendency — in 
creased  opposition — and  prepared  for  new  attack. 

§  505.  Decian  persecution — the  most  method 
ical — extensive — inquisitorial — and  cruel — hitherto 
the  martyrs  were  few  and  easily  numbered — (Ori 
gen.)  Js"ow  fell  chiefly  on  bishops  and  clergy — but 
all  required  to  sacrifice — flight  allowed  but  not  re- 
14 


314  ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY. 

turn — confiscation  of  goods — many  fled  to  desert — 
first  anchorites — Paul  of  Thebes. 


§  500.  Church  weakened  by  repose — increase 
of  apostates — Lapsi — classification.  The  3  classes 
of  the  lapsed  were :  (1.)  Sacrificati.  (2.)  Thurifi- 
cati.  (3.)  Libellatici — certificates  of  sacrifice  regis 
tered  as  heathen — condemned  by  zealous  Christians 
— ("nefandus  idololatrioe  libellus  " — Cyprian  cf. 
§  499) — Proportionate  zeal  and  steadfastness  of  con 
fessors — Legend  of  Seven  Sleepers — Gregory  of 
Tours — awoke  under  Theodosius  II.  (447)  and  saw 
the  cross  everywhere. 

§  507.  Death  of  Deems  (251)  seemed  to  lay 
storm — but  people  roused  by  plague  and  famine— 
Gallus  urged  to  persecute — would  if  could — but 
hindered  by  political  commotions — and  soon  died. 

§  508.  Valerian  (253) — at  first  favourable — but 
when  Christianity  spread  in  higher  ranks — listened 
to  his  favourite  Macrian — banished  ministers — for 
bade  meetings — next  year  began  to  slay  ministers 
and  chief  laymen — so  that  Christians  thought  Rev. 
13,  5  fulfilled. — (Dionysius  Alexandrinus  apud  Eu- 
sebius). 

§  509.  Martyrs  at  Koine :  Bishop  Sixtus — and 
four  deacons — one  of  them  St.  Lawrence — broiled 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  315 

alive.  At  Carthage  :  Cyprian — Christian  courtiers 
now  degraded — Acta — and  life  by  Pontius — next 
year  Persian  war — death  and  captivity  of  Yalerian 
• — narrow  escape  of  Church. 

§  510.  Galliemis  spared  Christians — perhaps 
from  indolence — but  not  merely  negative — impor 
tant  positive  measure — beginning  of  end — two  de 
crees  preserved  by  Eusebius — Christianity  recog 
nized  as  religio  licita  (259). 

§  511.  Aurelian — zealous  heathen — but  just  and 
politic — long  spared  Christianity — restrained  by 
decree  of  Gallienus — and  occupied  with  military 
enterprises — at  last  digested  plan  of  persecution — 
but  execution  prevented  by  military  conspiracy — 
and  death. 

§  512.  Another  interval — long  pause  in  storm 
of  persecution — seemed  to  be  abandoned — Christi 
anity  allowed  to  spread  for  many  years — but  only 
preparation  for  the  last  and  worst. 

§  513.  Diocletian— (284)— zealous  heathen— but 
good-natured — and  cautious — afraid  of  Christians 
— respected  act  of  Gallienus — wife  and  daughter 
Christians — but  favourite  scheme  to  restore  empire 
— and  with  it  the  old  religion — new  organization 
— two  Augusti  and  two  Cesars. 


316  ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOET. 

§  514.  Maximian — Augustus  of  the  "West — perse 
cutor  before — Legend  of  the  Theban  legion — much 
embellished — simplest  account — seventy  Christian 
soldiers  refused  to  march  against  their  brethren  and 
were  massacred  with  their  commander  Mauritius — 
at  St.  Maurice. 

§  515.  Galerius — son-in-law  of  Diocletian — and 
Cesar — bigoted  and  fanatical  heathen — leader  of 
that  party — unwearied  in  conjunction  with  Maxi 
mian — A.  D.  298,  purged  army  of  Christians. 

§  516.  A.  D.  303.  Meeting  of  Emperors  at 
Nicomedia — consulted  gods  and  men — Christian 
church  there  pulled  down — next  day — decree — clos 
ing  churches — burning  books — new  class  of  apos 
tates — Traditores  (i.  e.  librorum  sacrorum) — subter 
fuge — substituted  other  books — Christians  excluded 
from  office — Christian  slaves  from  hope  of  freedom 
— edict  pulled  down — palace  fired — charged  on 
Christians. 

§  51T.  Four  more  edicts — prisons  soon  filled — 
height  of  persecution  304 — sacrifice  or  die — almost 
whole  empire — wonders  of  heroism  and  cowardice 
— but  fewer  lapsed  than  under  Deems — new  tor 
ments — beasts  revolted  (Eusebius).  Sanguine  hopes 
— monuments  to  commemorate  extirpation  of  Chris 
tianity. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTOKY.  317 

§  518.  Diocletian  and  Maximi an  abdicated  (305) 
— Galerius  and  Constantius  Chlorus  succeeded — 
Constantius  Chlorus  had  spared  the  Christians  as 
much  as  possible — in  Spain — Gaul — and  Britain — 
Maximin  continued  persecution  in  the  East — ex 
clude  from  cities — forbade  church-building — circu 
lated  forged  Acts  of  Pilate — caused  to  be  read  in 
schools — sprinkled  food  in  market  with  sacrificial 
wine. 

§  519.  Galerius  on  death-bed — conscience-stricken 
— or  hope  of  restoration  by  Christian  God — first 
edict  (311) — still  extant — had  tried  to  restore  Chris 
tians,  who  had  left  parentum  suorum  sectam — but 
in  vain — "  Cjuamplurimi  perseverant  " — "  indulgen- 
tiam  credidimus'porrigendam" — better  be  Christians 
than  nothing — "  ut  denuo  shit  Christian!  et  conven- 
ticula  sua  componant " — provided  nothing  "  contra 
disciplinam  " — and  pray  to  their  God  for  us  and 
the  republic — that  they  may  lead  quiet  lives. 

§  520.  Constantine — son  of  Constantius  Chlorus 
— same  dispositions — proclaimed  by  army  in  Brit 
ain — opposed  by  Maxentius  in  Italy  and  Africa — 
ignoble  bigot — turned  against  Christians  because 
favoured  by  Constantine.  On  march  against  Max 
entius — Constantine  saw  cross  in  sky — various  ver 
sions — certainly  put  cross  in  hand  of  statue — and 


318  ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY. 

adopted  labamm  (doubtful  etymology).  Conquers 
Maxentius — Licinius  in  Illyricum — 312  edict  tol 
erating  all  religions  misunderstood — 313  edict  of 
Milan — allowing  free  profession  of  Christianity 
• — -Maximin  submits — and  dies  soon — Licinius  quar 
rels  with  Constantine  and  heads  heathen  party — war 
of  life  and  death — Constantine  conquers — end  of 
persecution  (323-4). 

§  521.  Ten  Persecutions — old  reckoning — found 
ed  on  Plagues  of  Egypt  ?— or  Rev.  IT,  12-14  ?— or 
mere  coincidence — Two  accounts — Sulpicius  Seve- 
rus — Historia  Sacra  (2,  33) — ten  plagues  predicted 
— nine  past — that  of  Antichrist  to  come.  Augus 
tine  (Civ.  Dei.  18,  52) — "  nonnullis  visum  est  vel 
videtur  " — no  more  persecution  until  Antichrist — 
but  he  thinks  only  ingenious  conjecture — without 
inspired  authority. 

§   522.    1.    Nero.  2.    Domitian.      3.    Trajan, 

j  M.  Aurelius  A    |  j  S.  Severus  A  j 

1  Adrian  S              j  |  Mamilius  S      f 
j  Maximin  A    } 

( Severus  S       J    7-  Decius.       8.  Valerian. 

f  Aurelian  A      ) 
9"  I  Diocletian  S     [  W-  Diocletian  A. 

§  523.  Question  as  to  severity  of  persecutions— 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  319 

and  number  of  martyrs — modern  disposition  to  ex 
tenuate — Dodwell — Semler — Ilase — partly  reaction 
from  old  exaggerations  (e.  g.  St.  Ursula  and  eleven 
thousand  virgins — martyred  on  pilgrimage  under 
Maximin  (§  502) — said  to  be  mistake  of  tombstone 
— XIM(artyres)  for  XI  (mi lie)  partly  from  con 
founding  earlier  and  later  periods — few  martyrs  be 
fore  Origen  (§  509.) 

§  524.  Some  from  wrong  motives — shame — van 
ity — sympathy — fear — fanaticism — insanity.  Still 
"  noble  army  of  martyrs  " — old  Greek  and  Roman 
heroism  matched  by  Christian  martyrs. 

§  525.  Good  effects  of  persecution — providential 
purpose  answered  (§  476),  but  not  perfectly — hypo 
crites  and  cowards  after  all. 

§  526.  Positive  bad  effects — false  notion  of  ne 
cessity  and  merit — false  standard  of  duty — undue 
attention  to  mere  suffering — with  some  the  whole 
of  religion  (like  temperance — antislavery — antipop- 
ery —  millenarianism — charity —  now) — false  posi 
tion  of  martyrs  and  confessors — led  to  early  contro 
versy — and  first  schisms. 


GENERAL  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA— BERKELEY 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or  on  the 

date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


29'Ji'54RC 
JUU  1 1954 


21-100m-l,'54(1887sl6)476 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


1 


